A GRIPPING TAIL Re-interpreting the Archaic Potnia Theron Schema By Emily Simons

A thesis submitted to Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Classics

Victoria University of Wellington

2014 Art cover, gold plaques depicting the Potnia Theron schema. Sourced: http://www.pinterest.com/annanorthman/grecia-clasica/. Accessed 11 March 2014. ABSTRACT

The Archaic Potnia Theron schema depicts a central female figure grasping an animal in each hand. She is often associated with the goddess Artemis. Yet, evidence from the early Archaic period indicates that she was not yet associated with the goddess. The identity of the schema has been the subject of a number of studies, and the connection of the figure with Artemis is well ingrained in scholarship. The identification of the figure as Artemis relies heavily on a brief description from Pausanias’s Perigesis, and the epithet Ποτνία Θηρῶν given to Artemis once in the Iliad (Hom. Il. 21.470). Furthermore, the image was later attributed to the goddess Artemis on account of her affiliations to wild animals. However, this thesis investigates the identification of the figure and examines the evidence (or lack thereof) for the attribution of the figure to Artemis in the Archaic period.

Chapter One will investigate the Potnia Theron schema and its use in the Bronze Age. It will consider the possible contribution that the Bronze Age schema may have had on the image in the Archaic period, acknowledging possible influence from the Near East. It will also discuss problems with Archaic source material, the fluidity of Archaic Greek religion, and the characteristics of the Archaic Potnia Theron schema. Chapter Two will analyse the sanctuary of

Artemis Orthia in Sparta as the main case study for the use of the Archaic schema in a sanctuary context. The chronology at the site, and its examples of the schema make it particularly useful for this investigation. Chapter Three will follow with an analysis of the schema on items lacking contexts, as it was used for decorative purposes on vases, jewelry, and plaques. Finally, Chapter

Four will examine the role of Artemis, how the Potnia Theron pose has since been interpreted to represent the goddess. This thesis will determine when the schema became associated with

Artemis and investigate evidence for its use prior to this association.

! 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………………….3

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………….4

METHOD………………………………………………………………………………………………...9

CHAPTER ONE: THE POTNIA THERON SCHEMA IN THE BRONZE AGE AND ARCHAIC PERIOD …….15

SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………………...29

CHAPTER TWO: THE SANCTUARY OF ARTEMIS ORTHIA, SPARTA……………………………………30

SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………………...…53

CHAPTER THREE: POTNIA THERON IMAGES LACKING CONTEXT……………………………………54

SUMMARY…………………….…………………………………………………………….….61

CHAPTER FOUR: ARTEMIS MEETS POTNIA THERON: ASSOCIATIONS IN THE ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL

PERIOD..………………………………………….…………………………………………………....63

SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………………………75

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………………..77

APPENDIX ONE – FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………....80

FIGURE LIST………………………………………………………………………………………..…105

BIBLIOGRAPHY..………………………………………….………………………………….……….112

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am particularly grateful to a number of people who helped and supported the production of this thesis. An important mention must go to my supervisor Diana Burton, for her timely edits, useful discussions and challenging questions.

I am also grateful for the support and dedication to the cause from my family: Mary, Conrad, Jess

Simons, Matt Mitchell, and the O’Halloran grandparents. Thanks to Katie Isaacs, Tania Hayes, and

Chris De Lisle for their extremely useful edits and comments along the way, for their helpfulness no matter the time. The entire Department of Classics at Victoria University has supported and encouraged this thesis. A special mention must go to Alex Wilson and Sheryn Simpson for their continued encouragement, technical support, and nourishment. I am also grateful for the advice and assistance of Harriet Kerr, Sam Webber, Julia Simons, Alex Oldfield, Jaimee Murdoch, and

Judy Deuling.

! 3 INTRODUCTION

The Archaic Potnia Theron schema is traditionally associated with the Greek goddess

Artemis. However, unlike artistic representations of other Greek deities and heroic figures, most of whom the modern viewer can recognize through attributes provided in myth and depicted in art, the identity of the Potnia Theron schema is difficult to place. It consists of a central female figure holding an animal, usually by the neck or leg, in each hand. The identity of the schema has been the subject of a number of studies, and the connection of the figure with Artemis is well ingrained in scholarship.1 The identification of the figure as Artemis relies heavily on a brief description from

Pausanias’s Perigesis, and the epithet Ποτνία Θηρῶν given to Artemis once in the Iliad (Hom. Il.

21.470). However, the schema is emblematic; it does not appear to have a mythic background and the concept of a coherent Greek religion was not fully established in the Archaic period. I consider the basis for the interpretation inconclusive and this thesis will reconsider the attribution of the schema to the goddess Artemis. !

Iconography is culturally specific and is often the result of multiple cultures interacting to forge new images and new meanings. Cultures may share images but the meaning of these images can remain unique to each culture or inhabit different contexts. The ancient Greek world was subject to a number of external influences throughout its development: from the East, Egypt, and its own historical Bronze Age predecessors. Quantifying the nature of such influences is both difficult and often subjective. Moreover, Greece was not a single entity during the Archaic Period but rather comprised of often disparate and varied regions. Regionalism is important to iconographic interpretations because it emphasizes differences between societies and subsequently their iconography. Influential scholarship in the twentieth century had two dominant approaches in determining the development of Greek religion and society. Early in the century

Arthur Evans and Martin Nilsson argued for the Greeks’ reliance on their heroic Mycenaean and sophisticated Minoan predecessors.2 This was followed by a period in which Greek social, artistic,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 See Aegeaum 2001 for an analysis of the figure in the Bronze Age and its contribution to the goddess Artemis. Marintaos 2000; Dawkins 1929; Rose 1929. 2 A summary of the arguments can be found in Preziosi and Hitchcock 1999, 7-20; Nilsson 1927 argues that the link between Greek religion and Minoan, Mycenaean religions can only be “bridged by the aid of hypothesis,” although he notes that aspects of Greek religion are based from the Mycenaean past, specifically he notes that the hero cults aimed at Mycenaean remains indicate if not a ! continuity of practice, at least a significant contribution to Greek religion, 10, 42; Evans 1912, 277.

4 and religious developments were believed to have depended on Eastern contact.3 Now however, it is possible to draw parallels in iconography and religious beliefs with the Near East, Greece, and their Bronze Age predecessors, as “no general statement about the nature of transmission or parallel development has won acceptance.”4 Iconography is particularly informative in the study of cultural contact and the Greek goddess Artemis and her associations with the Potnia Theron schema stands at the forefront of this discussion.

During the Greek Archaic period, local deities appear to have evolved in relative isolation providing different epithets, myths, and cult practices to the larger and more popular Olympian gods, signalling a process of appropriation.5 It was during the Orientalising and early Archaic periods, c. 700-500 BCE that a figure emerged in Greek iconography: a female poised between two animals, holding them with her hands by their necks and legs. This image was later attributed to the goddess Artemis on account of her affiliations to wild animals.6 However, the origin of this figure is controversial. Not only is her pose reminiscent of the Bronze Age ‘goddess’ type (fig. 1),7 but it is also similar to the iconography of Near Eastern goddesses (fig. 2).8 The Potnia Theron image is specific to the early periods of Greek history: the Orientalising and Archaic periods. It is not depicted in the Classical period lending support to the notion that the figure may have originally represented a particular local goddess or concept particular to the early Greeks. Or, it may imply that the figure portrayed Artemis in a manner which was increasingly unpopular or unfashionable towards the Late Archaic period.

Until recently, scholars have tended to ignore, or treat very lightly, the influence of Minoan and Mycenaean cultures on the image’s development, preferring instead to ascribe the violence in the images to goddesses from the Near East.9 But this approach is overly simplistic, as will be further developed in Chapter One. While it is true that physical proximity does not always

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 ! Vernant 1991, 151; Fischer-Hansen and Paulsen 2009, 13; Hjerrild 2009, 42. 4 Naiden 2013, 411. Naiden provides further discussion about historical approaches to Greek religion and a concise evaluation of previous scholars work about methods of transmission, finally concluding that transmission can be a self-conscious process, 410. The Greeks did not necessarily consider themselves as having a ‘religion’ implying that they had freedom of choice, nor were they necessarily aware of internal practices which may have had a different origin, indeed peoples form the Near East, and possibly even the Greeks themselves, considered themselves distinct form the religions of their neighbours, 397, 408. 5 Farnell 1896, 426; Naiden 2013, 398; Graf 2010, 67-68; Dowden 2007, 41-42, 45. 6 ! Kahil 1984, 618. 7 For a discussion on female deities in Crete, see: Younger and Rehak 2008, 168, 176-182; French 1980, 173; Thomas and Wedde ! 2001, 7. 8 ! Marinatos 2000; Hjerrild 2009; Barclay 2001. 9 ! Marinatos 2000, 117, 128-129; Younger and Rehak 2008, 168; Fischer-Hansen and Paulsen 2009, 13.

! 5 guarantee the transference of images, symbols and ideas, it is just as likely that the imagery of the

Archaic Greeks was influenced by proximal similarities and imagery in the Mainland and Crete.

There is no reason to believe that the Geometric and Archaic Greeks did not have access to

Bronze Age artefacts. In fact, a number of Mycenaean seal stones were excavated in the

Geometric strata at the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia in Sparta, demonstrating that there was at least some interest in Mycenaean artefacts, either as heirlooms or with a similar use.10 Given this uncertainty, we cannot assume one method of transference over another, although discussions of a common Aegean symbolism or an iconographic koine can mitigate this issue somewhat.11 The influence of the Minoan and Mycenaean image on the Archaic period has only just started to be explored more fully in recent years.12

A general discussion of transference is not the focus for this thesis; rather I will use the

Bronze Age image to inform possible interpretations of the Archaic schema. Modern understanding of the Bronze Age in Crete has been shaped by the early work of Evans.

Aristocratic virtues, elegant palaces, and a peaceful society are all concepts that Evans has instilled into scholarship regarding Minoan culture. This is particularly important for understanding assumptions around the Potnia Theron figure. The Bronze Age depictions are often described as peaceful and the animal figures function as heraldic creatures.13 Chapter One of this thesis will discuss the Potnia Theron schema from the Bronze Age, acknowledging possible influence from the Near East. In contrast, the Archaic figure holds animals in a way that is described as violent or representing domination, two concepts which Chapter One also discusses. These ‘so-called’ violent depictions, reminiscent of similar Near Eastern images, are the reason that the Archaic image is ascribed to Artemis.14 Attributing the epithet title to a motif results in further complications of identification. The schema is not named in any examples, and the title has only been attributed to the figure because of its possible similarities to the goddess Artemis. However, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10 Dawkins 1929, 18, 378. All of the seal stones were found beneath the sand layer, thus indicating that they may have been used by the Archaic Greeks prior to c. 570/560 BCE. The materials of the stones varied from steatite, agate, carnelian, and glass. One depicts an ibex, fig. 144f, another a double axe, fig. 146, and another a labyrinth pattern, AO 1929, Pl. CCIV, C. 1. Others appear to be plain. 11 Noegel 2007, 24-25. Just as it is problematic to discuss ‘Greek Religion’ as a cohesive group, so too it the label ‘Near Eastern religion’ and iconography. The Near East was a composite area of disparate religions and a huge variety of cultural and socially scaled groups, 22. 12 Soles 2001, 231; See specifically Marinatos 2000 for insightful discussion on the influence of Bronze Age imagery in early Greek religion, albeit an interesting conclusion. Nosch 2009 also provides a good discussion on the continuity of cult sites and activities associated with Artemis in the second and first millenniums BCE. 13 Marinatos 2000, 112; Younger and Rehak 2008, 168, 179; Crowley 2008, 261, 270; Kopaka 2001, 17, 21; Thompson 1909, 303-304; ! West 1997, 10. 14 ! Barclay 2001; Hjerilld 2009.

6 as this thesis will discuss, attributing a mythic character to an emblematic motif may not accurately represent what the motif may have originally depicted.

Archaic sources such as literature, myth, and art are problematic as evidence for a variety of reasons. The title given to the Bronze Age image, Potnia Theron literally translates to the ‘Mistress of the Animals’ and has since been used to describe Artemis or Artemis-type goddesses due to a mention in Homer’s Iliad (Il. 21. 470). The term PO-TI-NI-JA has been found at every major Bronze Age Linear B site.15 At each site local appellations appear alongside the term contributing to the conclusion that the term functioned as a specialized title for many different goddesses, or as a title for local variations of the same goddess. The phrase ‘Potnia

Theron’ seems to have been a Homeric invention, and despite Walter Burkert’s assumption that it may have been a well-established formula in use during the Archaic period,16 there is of yet no evidence that the term was in widespread use, let alone used to define one of Artemis’s realms of influence in mainstream society. !

The phrase was adopted from the Iliad in scholarship because it appears to describe the sense of mastery illustrated by the female and her pose over the animals (Il. 21.470). As an epithet given to Artemis, and the attribution of the title to the schema under discussion created a situation in which the pose, even removed from the Greek context, seen in Near Eastern and

Egyptian deities, became associated with Artemis. Such associations are problematic, can limit interpretations and heavily impact upon further study of the pose and its meaning. However, despite the associations that the title has with Artemis, this thesis will continue to refer to the schema as Potnia Theron, with the understanding that it was used only once as an epithet of

Artemis in the extant literary record and with the awareness of its associated preconceptions.

The Potnia Theron schema was used primarily during the Archaic period, marking the duration of its popularity. During this period its significance is unclear. However, meaning in the

Potnia Theron pose may be conveyed through the use of different animals in the schema. In order to trace the development and meaning of the Potnia Theron figure, a methodology section will first address many of the issues facing the study of iconography, and establish the way in which

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 15 ! Van Leuven 1979, 121 16 ! Burkert 1985, 149.

! 7 this study will approach iconography. Chapter One will investigate the Potnia Theron schema and its use in the Bronze Age. It will consider the possible contribution that the Bronze Age schema may have had on the image in the Archaic period, acknowledging possible influence from the

Near East. It will also discuss problems with Archaic source material, the fluidity of Archaic Greek religion, and the characteristics of the Archaic Potnia Theron. Chapter Two will analyse the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia in Sparta as the main case study for the use of the Archaic schema in a sanctuary context. Chapter Three will follow this with an analysis of the schema on items lacking contexts, as it was used for decorative purposes on vases, jewelry, and plaques. Finally, Chapter

Four will examine how the Potnia Theron pose has since been interpreted to represent the goddess Artemis, concluding that this attribution is not valid in the Archaic period.

!

8 METHOD!

Large geographic and cultural differences ensure variety within the Aegean, although the area shares some religious characteristics, aspects of social strata, and iconography. The Potnia

Theron schema is a common motif found around the Aegean, each area modifying the figure to fit a specific role. Determining this role and what it represents is the focus of this thesis. In the

Archaic period on mainland Greece her image is primarily found on pottery, and on a number of votives at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia in Sparta. Similar figures have also been found in the

Near East and in Crete, dating from both the Bronze Age and the Archaic periods. The schema has since been considered to represent Artemis. However, there are a number of important practical considerations regarding this analysis and limited sources in the Archaic period makes aspects of the analysis problematic. Differences in media, context, and the extent of foreign influence are significant problems when analysing iconography. The treatment of such differences differs widely among scholars, posing a number of challenges to this study.

One main concern facing this study is the construct that the Potnia Theron schema has become. In the words of Katerina Kopaka the schema is something that is and was “constructed by culturally different people who created, transformed, and ‘consumed’ Potnia and, furthermore, reconstruction by generations of scholars who analysed and interpreted her, as we do today, following the axes of the iconographic and philological testimonies but also their own related experiences, perceptions, and ideological trends.”17 The attribution of the figure to Artemis has become part of this construct. An awareness of this construct is essential to appropriately analyse the subject.

In order to critically and objectively analyse the data in this study I must be aware of any cultural preconceptions and bias that I might bring to the study. Modern scholars are generally aware that “Humans develop through socialisation and we acquire culturally determined preconceptions in our thinking...”18 While some bias is inevitable, in an attempt to avoid it throughout this study, I will address many different possibilities, try to avoid obvious assumptions, and I will base my conclusions on extant evidence using inductive reasoning, which is to some !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 17 Kopaka 2001, 17. 18 ! Payne and Payne 2004, 172.

! 9 extent subjective. As such I will be using data from Herbert Rose and Richard Dawkins, as they authored the original excavation documents from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta. I will however conduct my own analysis of the finds which will involve a thorough discussion of the schema across Greece from multiple perspectives in an attempt to avoid placing my own and others’ cultural bias on any conclusions.

Context is essential when analysing iconography; images found on a vase in a domestic context do not have the same meaning as an image in a temple complex. Given that images of deities function in different ways in different areas it is essential to consider their contexts when interpreting individual meaning. While archaeology has improved immeasurably since the beginning of the twentieth century, modern scholars are often at the mercy of early archaeologists and their interpretations. Lewis Farnell, Burkert, Evans, and Nilsson have contributed significantly to scholarship pertaining to the Bronze Age and early Greek religion.19 Dawkins, the excavator of the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, has also heavily influenced interpretations about the cult of

Artemis in Sparta.20 His methods and interpretations however, alongside those of Herbert Rose, reflect colonial and pro-western backgrounds.21 A modern interpretation of the data would not necessarily reflect or conclude similar outcomes, making the analysis of the Potnia Theron schema in this thesis integral to a new understanding of the role of the schema both inside and outside a sanctuary context.

Nicki Waugh and Konstantinos Kopanias have re-examined a number of items uncovered at the sanctuary site of Artemis Orthia. Waugh re-examines the evidence of the Potnia Theron figurines and nude female figurines at the sanctuary of Orthia, deconstructing their identities based on assumed roles associated with fertility in her article “Visualising Fertility at Artemis

Orthia's Site.”22 In addition to identifying many issues in Dawkins’ and Rose's discussions, such as the exclusion of some nude figures in their publications, Waugh also argues that the site of Orthia

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 19 ! Evans 1901, 1912, PM 1921-1935; Nilsson 1927; Burkert 1985; Farnell 1896, (passim). 20 ! Dawkins 1929. 21 Rose 1929, 401; Waugh 2009, 160, 162-163. Particularly in his approach to nude figurines, their interpretation and connections with fertility and Aphrodite. Additionally, Waugh contends that many nude figurines were not discussed in the 1929 monograph due to ! their nudity and sexual inferences. 22 ! Waugh 2009.

10 does not produce any evidence for the local deity to be a fertility goddess.23 She challenges assumptions made in Dawkins’ 1929 monograph, The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia (henceforth to be referred to as AO), that nudity represents fertility and notes that from the vast numbers of finds, not one shows any signs of pregnancy or fecundity.24 Her examination thus analyses the finds in a clear context, devoid of earlier assumptions regarding female roles in the Archaic period.

Kopanias closely analyses four ivories from the site of Artemis Orthia, three of which depict the Potnia Theron schema, and places them within the context of a sanctuary workshop.25 Despite the similarities of the ivories to Near Eastern styles, Kopanias argues that the Orthia ivories were manufactured on site, and establishes a clear system for evaluating the attributes of the figures.26

Following Waugh and Kopanias’ lead, I will focus on analysing examples of the Potnia Theron schema in different contexts and addressing various possible interpretations that may be attributed to them.

The popularity of the Potnia Theron image around the Aegean region resulted in it being thought by Nanno Marinatos and Nilsson to belong to a koine of Aegean iconography.27 Such a koine would explain similarities that the Archaic image shares with Near Eastern and Bronze Age figures, but while the pose may be similar, the details and their meaning may vary considerably.

Theories of trade networks and exchange around the Mediterranean are particularly helpful when considering the level of foreign influence on the Archaic Greek Potnia Theron.28 Materials such as ivory, silver, and lead were imported and exported in both the Bronze Age and Archaic periods.29

Artists to moved around the Mediterranean, creating a system where images could be shared, adopted, and adapted to suit a particular audience. Anthropological studies of acculturation and identity formation have become more important in scholarly research, alongside the acknowledgement that we cannot assume a singular process of influence: each culture has !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 23 Waugh 2009, 162-165. This is primarily important for the association of Artemis with her fertility aspect, and her later association with Eileithyia, the birth goddess, and her power over women during birth. Waugh argues that the sanctuary site of Artemis Orthia does not ! provide evidence of this association. 24 ! Waugh 2009, 164. 25 ! Kopanias 2009. 26 ! Kopanias 2009, 129-130. 27 ! Nilsson 1927; Marinatos 2000, 129; 2010, 7; Hagg 1981, 39. See also Burkert 2004 and West 1997, 10-11. 28 Exchange networks: Cosmopoulos 1991, 155-167; Noegel 2007; Models of Eastern influence: Vernant 1991, 151; Dietrich 1986, 8-9; Younger and Rehak 2008, 168; Fischer-Hansen and Paulsen 2009, 12-13; Hjerrild 2009, 48; Possible Aegean Koine: Renfrew 1981, 27; ! Hagg 1981, 39; Kopaka 2001, 17-19. 29 ! Gill and Vickers 2001, 236.

! 11 different concerns and emerges out of different geographic, economic, and political circumstances.30 The relatively small geographic area of the Mediterranean resulted in acculturation through sustained contact; cultural ideas were exchanged, but the adoption of specific traits was not arbitrary nor was it uniform, instead fitting into the specific traditions of the adopting culture.31 In this way, the image of the Potnia Theron can be common to a large area but adopted new meanings based on the context of the different cultures that it interacted with.

Different types of Potnia Theron

In naming the schema Potnia Theron, I accept that it comes with the connotations of the

‘Mistress of Animals’ translation.

There are a number of different types of Potnia Theron, not only those already mentioned, the Aegean Bronze Age, Near Eastern, and Archaic figures, but also further types within these categories. In all types, the pose is similar but there are differences in the types of animals present, the garments of the female figure, whether she holds the animals, and the specific context. These differences will be discussed in Chapter One, in order to determine the importance of the differences between the animals. This study will primarily use the different types of Potnia Theron in a qualitative manner in an attempt to interpret how ancient Greeks understood the Potnia Theron schema.32 Qualitative analysis requires interpretation and will to some extent be subjective, based on available evidence and inductive analysis. 33 Through the awareness of possible assumptions I will attempt to mitigate the subjectivity of the analysis. I will discuss the role of the figures, their features, and contexts in case studies, focussing specifically on the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia. Furthermore, I will use these examples in a discussion about their relationship and attribution to Artemis. I wish to avoid stringent categorisation of long descriptions of specific features particularly as important issues such as context and potential interpretations are difficult to analyse statistically.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 30 ! Newman-Stille 2007, 8; Payne and Payne 2004, 172. 31 Newman-Stille 2007, 10; Crowley 2008, 280. Both Newman-Stille and Crowley argue that the Mycenaeans were selective of the icons that they appropriated from the Minoans, with Crowley arguing that the Mycenaeans “left behind the images closely associated with ! Minoan nature religion but took up …. those images which they saw as associated with Minoan prestige and power.” 280. 32 ! Payne and Payne 2004, 175. 33 ! Payne and Payne 2004, 175-176.

12 Types of Potnia Theron can be determined through their find locations and context. Items such as those found at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia are primarily assumed to be religious, either representative of the goddess herself or as functioning votive objects (which are not mutually exclusive). The ubiquitous lead animals from the site could be symbolic of sacrificial animals,34 and could also have functioned as religious votive offerings. Other images, such as those found on pottery, may depict a divinity but may not necessarily be representative of her power. It is the purpose of this thesis to determine the role that the schema played in these different contexts. As Derek Newmann-Stille notes, symbols and images are the means by which a group expresses their own ideologies, and the means by which artists interpreted religion and translated it to their audiences.35 This study will use a structuralist approach with the data, analysing a sample of Potnia Theron images and attempting to reconstruct how they were used in a variety of contexts and how Archaic Greeks understood them.36 This will contribute to further interpretations of the schema. Using this analysis, Chapter Four will discuss the schema in order to determine how the different types of Potnia Theron were perceived.37

Problems with Religion

There is evidence of religion in the Bronze Age but our understanding of this religion is far from satisfactory considering mythologies and descriptions of beliefs are since lost. While a number of sacred sites, shrines, and political centres are accessible archaeologically, the ideologies and beliefs of Bronze Age peoples are unknown. The written texts of Linear A and B appear to be administrative lists detailing items exchanged by individuals, and possibly names of deities. However, the nature of their religion is difficult to ascertain, a problem which will be discussed further in Chapter One.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 34 ! Rose 1929, 402. 35 ! Newman-Stille 2007, 62. 36 Parker 2011, 84 – 98, discusses the traditional method of uniting functions of deities together. The epithets and local derivations of the gods indicate that although they may have some aspect of a larger deity, the functions were specific, attributed by the specific ‘honours’ that a god had. He argues that in order to address Greek religion, the “working assumption ought to be that all Greeks had some notion of the divine world being structured by a division of ‘honours’ between gods.” 85. Therefore he acknowledges that different dieties had different functions, but as seen in the different functions of the aspects of Artemis (to be discussed in Chapter Four) there are unifying features. The flexibility of these features and how they were used made them useful tools for “coping with the diversity of experience.” 98. 37 ! E.g. Schwandt 2007, 278-279; Papalexandrou 2008, 255.

! 13 Understanding the role of the Potnia Theron schema in Greek religion is a formidable undertaking. Religion during the Archaic period was fluid and literary sources are scarce. For these reasons the methodology of this study will consist of a direct analysis of the Potnia Theron figures, and a comparison of available literary sources, resulting in an interpretation of the role of the Potnia Theron schema in Archaic Greek religion. Chapters Two and Three will analyse data from the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia and those figures lacking context. Chapter Four will determine whether the evidence supports the role afforded the image as Artemis. The purpose of this discussion will be to determine the role that these images played in Archaic religion, culture, and whether or not the Potnia Theron's association with Artemis is valid.

14 CHAPTER ONE:

THE POTNIA THERON SCHEMA IN THE BRONZE AGE AND

ARCHAIC PERIODS

The Potnia Theron image was an important motif in the Bronze Age. Occurring primarily on sealings and seal stones, the motif is very regular, with little variation. Typically the schema consists of a central female who occasionally wears a headdress, flanked by griffins or lions facing inwards, towards the female figure (Fig. 1). Occasionally the Mycenaeans might depict the female holding animals, much like the later Archaic motif indicating possible evidence of continuity or of an Aegean image koine. The Bronze Age covers approximately eight hundred years, many of which are difficult to accurately date and access archaeologically. In this chapter, I will focus specifically on examples of the schema from the Middle and Late Bronze Age in both Crete and

Mainland Greece. This examination will shed light on the level of influence that the Bronze Age figure had upon the Archaic schema and will inform our understanding of later representations.

The first section of this chapter will discuss problems with source material in the periods under discussion, followed by an introduction to the Bronze Age Potnia Theron schema. It will then address goddesses in the Bronze Age and the origin of the title Potnia Theron given to the schema. I will consider evidence that a goddess named Artemis existed in the Bronze Age, and iconographic influences from the Near East. The next section will provide a brief analysis of the characteristics and concepts expressed by the Archaic Potnia Theron image, with particular attention to assumed characteristics based on the schema’s later identification with Artemis. The final section will compare the schemata in order to assess a possible identification of the figure.

Both Minoan and Mycenaean cultures produced a number of examples of Potnia Theron figures. Cretan examples of the Potnia Theron schema do not hold the animals; although a few

Mycenaean examples hold animals in a manner similar to the Archaic schema (fig.3). Identifying the role that the schema played in the Bronze Age is important for the study of the schema in the

Archaic period because it can provide a basis from which conclusions about the figure can be

! 15 made. The Potnia Theron schema is typically understood by scholars to represent a goddess in the Bronze Age.38 Unfortunately, her specific identity is unknown.

The Archaic Artemis is a shadowy figure; not only are literary sources sparse during this period, but during the Geometric and early Archaic periods the Greek deities underwent a number of alterations and changes. Their identities and areas of influence were fluid. Throughout this period the Greek gods developed visual attributes that made them recognizable in artistic representations. The fragmentary nature of the sources makes it difficult to determine when

Artemis became popular across Greece, how her cult spread across Greece, and how her iconography developed.

Problems with the sources

Literary sources from the Archaic period are sparse and rarely address Artemis specifically.

Fortunately, we can draw some evidence from later authors such as Pausanias and Plutarch who may be considered useful for their descriptions of contemporary cultures, perspectives, and religion.39 Both Herodotus and Xenophon are much closer chronologically to the Archaic period, but their primary focus does not concern Artemis, her image or her cult. The treatment of Artemis in Homeric literature is relatively unflattering. She is not described as particularly powerful, although the Iliad is the source of the title that is being used in this study. Her main role in the

Iliad was to illustrate Apollo’s power and the hierarchy of the Olympian gods.40 Furthermore, the

Homeric epics do not address how Artemis was perceived and worshiped by mortals, and were not considered as religious texts.41!

Origin of the title and Bronze Age goddesses

The translation of Mycenaean Linear B texts in 1952,42 exposed the existence of a deity or person with the title of Potnia, PO-TI-NI-JA,43 which translates as ‘the lady’ or ‘Mistress’. It was used both independently and in connection with a variety of other names. The term was also used

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 38 ! E.g. Marinatos 2000, 111-114; Vernant 1991, 196-197; Nilsson 1927, 309; Hagg 1980, 38; Younger and Rehak 2008, 168. 39 These sources will be discussed at length in Chapters Three and Four. 40 ! Skafte-Jensen 2009, 51-52; Petrovic 2010, 211. 41 Noegel 2008, 25. 42 ! Nosch 2009, 21; Crowley 2008, 258. 43 ! Nosch 2009, 22; Demsky 1998, 57-58; Van Leuven 1979.

16 in historical Greece for the same purpose, with Homer using it sixty-nine times as a title for many different goddesses and eminent mortal females.44 However, the full phrase Potnia Theron only appears in Homer’s Iliad, as an epithet of Artemis.

τὸν δὲ κασιγνήτη μάλα νείκεσε, πότνια θηρῶν, Ἄρτεμις ἀγροτέρη...

But his sister scolded him harshly, the Mistress of Animals, Artemis of the wild... (Il.

21.470)45

There is no evidence that the complete term was used in the Bronze Age. The name of the

Potnia Theron schema thus appears to have stemmed from this one occurrence in the Iliad that has led to the pose of a Bronze Age figure and some Near Eastern deities being associated with

Artemis. In modern scholarship the term has been used to denote a specific hypothetical deity with connections to animals, usually simplified to the Greek Artemis.46 The Potnia Theron schema

“is a pictorial motif, not a deity identifiable… by that name, a useful analytical term, a scholarly construct.”47 Yet despite identifying the term as a scholarly construct, the schema and its name are consistently recognised as a deity.48 Female figures depicted with flanking animals are labelled Potnia Theron, resulting in the characteristic association of the Potnia Theron schema with the Greek goddess Artemis. Unfortunately such associations overlook the possibility that the schema may, at times, represent a different concept or goddess.

Interestingly, the name Artemis is also present on the Linear B tablets as A-TE-MI-TO indicating that she may have existed in the Bronze Age separate from the Potnia title.49 Christiane

Sourvinou-Inwood analysed the term and its use in her article “A-TE-MI-TO and A-TI-MI-TE” with the conclusion that the term does not refer to a deity called Artemis.50 The different forms of the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 44 Thomas and Wedde 2000, 4. There are 49 examples of Potnia in the Iliad: 24 refer to Hera, one each to Artemis, Athena, and Enyo. 21 examples use the formulaic Potnia Mater. There are 20 examples of the term in the Odyssey: 4 refer to Circe, one each to Hera, Calypso, and a nymph. There are also 13 examples of the Potnia Mater. Demsky 1998, 58. It can be used as a proper term of ! veneration or it can refer to a goddess without mentioning her name. Chadwick and Ventris 1973. 45 All translations are my own unless otherwise stated. 46 The term is so ingrained in scholarship that tracking down who first coined it in connection with the pose would not be productive. 47 ! Thomas and Wedde 2000, 12. 48 E.g. Marinatos 2000; Vernant 1991, 196-197; Nilsson 1927, 309; Hagg 1981, 38; Younger and Rehak 2008, 167-168; Aegeaum: ! POTNIA 2001. 49 PY 167 and PY Un 219. Chadwick and Ventris 1973, 535. The translation however is debated and does not provide unequivocal proof that a goddess of this name existed in the Bronze Age. Furthermore, Sourvinou-Inwood argues that the context of the inscriptions makes it highly unlikely that the term refers to a deity, 1970. 50 Sourvinou-Inwood 1970, 47. For further reading about Linear B translations see Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 42 for Linear B spelling and 127 for a different interpretation of the term A-TI-MI-TE.

! 17 word appear only three times in the extant evidence, and two forms of the word interchanged an

‘I’ and an ‘E,’ resulting in A-TE-MI-TO and A-TI-MI-TE. Such interchanges, she argues are rare in

Linear B and that the small extant sample is “not enough to constitute conclusive evidence” that the term is related to the Greek Artemis.51 According to Sourvinou-Inwood, it is improbable that the terms above refer to the name of the goddess Artemis on the Linear B tablets. If there were more examples of the term and its use, this conclusion may be altered. Another theory, supported if A-TE-MI-TO does refer to Artemis, is that she was an indigenous goddess of nature in Greece.52

In any case, the limited evidence means that the Linear B word A-TE-MI-TO cannot be used with any confidence to demonstrate the existence of Artemis as a deity in the Bronze Age.

For the purposes of this study I will use the term Potnia Theron as Thomas and Wedde suggest, denoting a motif rather than a divinity. While acknowledging the possibility of a Bronze

Age Mycenaean divinity by the name of PO-TI-NI-JA and separately perhaps A-TE-MI-TO, I propose to trace the development of the schema in the Bronze Age to identify its level of influence on the development of the Archaic Artemis’ imagery. I intend to trace the development of the Potnia Theron pose: the central female figure flanked by animals, and the contribution that this form had upon the depiction of the Archaic figure which was later attributed to Artemis.

The Potnia Theron image in Bronze Age Crete, the Mainland, and the East

The schema in the Bronze Age often depicts a female figure flanked by lions or griffins, although a Mycenaean example depicts the female holding a bird in each hand by the neck. The repetition of the female figure in the Potnia Theron schema across the Bronze Age through to the

Archaic period hints at some form of continuity. However, the important issue is determining whether that continuity is only in the image itself, in its purpose, or in what the image was meant to convey. The identification of the female figure would be invaluable to our understanding of her cultural significance. Modern scholarship has associated the Potnia Theron pose with the Archaic and Asiatic Artemis.53 Furthermore, a number of studies have linked the Potnia Theron schema

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 51 ! Sourvinou-Inwood 1970, 44. 52 Hjerrild 2009, 41, 48. Nosch 2009, 34. Note the tablets are from Pylos, there is no Bronze Age evidence that Artemis was associated ! with Crete, though she later had strong associations there – possibly she existed there prior to the Mycenaean ‘take-over’ if at all. 53 ! E.g Marinatos 2000, Chapters 5-6; Vernant 1991, 196; Younger and Rehak 2008, 181; Thompson 1909.

18 with similar Near Eastern images of goddesses Astarte and Asherah.54 This association is primarily based on the pose, rather than shared divine attributes (fig. 2). Some scholars argue that Near

Eastern goddesses generously contributed to the development of the persona of the Greek

Artemis, if she was not transplanted entirely.55 The level of influence on the schema from various regions and cultures is important because it may explain particular implications of the schema in

Bronze Age Aegean society. Yet outside influence is difficult to objectively measure, and often it is not a one-step process, but involves complex movements of people and ideas.56

The Potnia Theron schema is common in the Late Helladic, Middle and Late Minoan periods. The most prolific sources of the Bronze Age schema are seals and sealings, both of which are found in Minoan and Helladic cultures.57 However, this medium can be problematic. Seals are generally small, some are schematic and it is commonly agreed that the seal stones portray images and concepts in stylistic ‘shorthand.’58 This is problematic for interpretations, as evidenced by some scholars’ attempts at describing the images in a religious context with little empirical evidence.59 Most females depicted are interpreted as divinities or devotees. Seals and sealings were used, in our understanding, in exchange – whether as seals to identify the owner or sender of merchandise or letters, or as symbols of a larger administrative system.60 Such a function would allow the seals to be interpreted along the lines of an administrative or family role in addition to their religious functions. In any case, the separation of the civic, domestic, religious, and political spheres may be anachronistic. Bronze Age society may have intimately linked the function of the seals with religion, making interpretations of shorthand concepts difficult to categorize and ascribe to certain functions from a modern secular background. A lack of contemporary literature also limits how we can interpret religious images. The significance of the

Potnia Theron schema in the Bronze Age is difficult to adequately interpret, although its presence

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 54 A discussion on the Near Eastern influences can be found in Owens 1996, 209-218, although Owens associates the goddess with the ! ‘Great Mother Goddess’ a construct whose existence is debatable; Younger and Rehak 2008, 174; Hjerilld 2009; Barclay 2001. 55 ! Fischer-Hansen and Paulsen 2009, 12-13; Dietrich 1986, 11; Hjerrild 2009, 42, 48; Burkert 1985, 149; Barclay 2001, 375. 56 West 1997, 1-12, identifies the problems with addressing the issue of influence because of the number of similarities between Greece and the Near East, he argues primarily for the strong Eastern influence on Archaic Greece; Kopanias 2009, concludes that ivory plaques from the sanctuary site of Artemis Orthia exhibit Cretan features, yet also features associated primarily with the Greek mainland, therefore they are evidence for the movement of artists within the Aegean, 129-130. 57 ! Palaima 2008, 346; Younger and Rehak 2008, 167 58 ! E. g. Newmann-Stille 2007, 20, 25; Hagg 1981, 37. 59 Newman-Stille 2007, 20. See for example Younger and Rehak 2008, 167 for a description of seal stones and their use, however, they ! also interpret figures hugging trees and boulders as an attempt to evoke an epiphany of a god. 60 ! Preziosi and Hitchcock 1999, 72, 115.

! 19 on a number of sealings strongly implies that it played an important role where it moved around and possibly represented a larger administrative or political system.

The use of the Potnia Theron schema in an administrative system may also imply that it functioned as a form of ruler iconography. A number of other motifs were used on seals and sealings,61 but the depiction of a female flanked by griffins and lions conveys a sense of strength and power. A similar arrangement may be seen at the palace at Pylos, where antithetical pairs of lions and griffins framed the throne.62 The lion appears with images of Near Eastern rulers, while the griffin often acted as the protagonist in warrior-king or hero depictions.63 In Near Eastern contexts, the lion and arguably the griffin too functioned as protectors and guardians when occupying gateways or doorways.64 Bronze Age Crete lacks distinctive leader iconography and given the additional lack of translatable records, the notion that the Bronze Age figures may be depictions of mortal leaders is a distinct possibility. Aside from the Potnia Theron depictions, there are a number of other possible goddess or leader depictions, yet it is unclear whether they are all of one deity in various guises or myths, multiple deities, or rulers with distinct attributes.65

The Bronze Age Potnia Theron schema uses the attendant animals as an attribute, possibly representing the power of a female leader, or, more plausibly, the power of a female deity.

Perhaps the presence of the schema, specifically with lions and griffins, in an administrative system suggests that it was used to protect items traded to political or religious centres, or was the personification of a concept important in exchange such as truth, honesty, or guardianship.66

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 61 E.g. Younger 1985. 62 Crowley 2008, 270. It is possible that one of the reasons that their does not appear to be any individual leader iconography from the Bronze Age, is that it was these animals which expressed power behind mortal leaders. 63 Goldman 1960, 327. Preziosi and Hitchcock 1999, 189; Thomas and Wedde 2001, 9. I would like to express gratitude to Ana Becerra of the University of Sydney for her help and expertise on lion and griffin imagery in the Near East. 64 Preziosi and Hitchcock 1999, 188-189. Note also the possible similarity in the Lion gate at Mycenae. Preziosi and Hitchcock note some 18 scholars including Evans and Wace who associate the pillar with an aniconic deity, note 30, Chapter Five. 65 Van Leuven 1979, 112. See for example the Master Impression in Chania and its companion piece, the Mistress of Mountains seal from Knossos where the pose, and in the case of the Mistress of Mountains seal, the heraldic lions , may have functioned as a type of ! ruler iconography. Preziosi and Hitchcock 1999, fig. 55a and 55b. 66 The schema does occur on various other mediums however none in such numbers as the seals and sealing’s, and more specifically, none in the emblematic manner depicted on the seals, instead being far more implicit. See for example the Mistress of Animals fresco at Akrotiri on Thera, where the female is seated, a griffin stands rearing behind her, and a blue monkey appears to be handing her something. In this instance the female is interacting with her flanking animals and the situation of the fresco implies that she was part of a larger narrative. Therefore the Akrotiri Mistress of Animals does not belong among the emblematic motifs investigated in this thesis.

20 The transition of the Potnia Theron schema from the Bronze Age to the Archaic

period: Appropriation or reinvention?

The Dark Ages, which occurred approximately between the 12th and 8th centuries BCE,67 were a period during which the population of both the Mainland and Crete decreased, the quality of technology declined, and artistic production degenerated. There is a dearth of evidence from this period, indicating that there may have been little artistic continuity through to the Archaic period. However, evidence from the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia in Sparta makes it clear that

Archaic Greeks had access to Mycenaean relics. Two seal stones were uncovered in Dawkins’ excavation and are thought to have been family heirlooms or keepsakes.68 While the Archaic

Greeks may not have used the seal-stones for their original purpose, their presence suggests that the iconography of the Bronze Age was at least accessible.69

The break between the Bronze Age period and that of the early Geometric and Archaic period resulted in a loss of artistic skill and a large change in styles, both in pottery and statuary.

Early Geometric pottery rarely portrayed human figures, and it was not until c. 750-700 BCE that the human figure began to be depicted once more.70 Figures were extremely basic and there were no fixed methods for depicting or identifying particular personalities, individual gods, or heroes.71 During the later Geometric and Archaic periods, when exchange between Greece and the wider Mediterranean became more and more common, artists were subject to an influx of images, or in the words of Jean-Pierre Vernant, a veritable ‘palette of figures.’72 It was partially through this contact and exchange - directly and indirectly from Egypt, the Near East, and even further afield - that the Greeks began to develop ways to portray deities. Relying heavily on common attributes and a newly developed script with which they could now name figures on pottery, Greek artists created images of their own gods. This concept of developing images is particularly important in the context of investigating the meaning of the Archaic Potnia Theron figure, and determining whether it was originally intended to portray Artemis. The image was !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 67 Vernant 1991, 151; Deger-Jalkotzy 2008. Recent archaeological works on the mainland are beginning to show more evidence for life during this transitional period. A lack of examples of the Potnia Theron schema from these sites so far limits this study to consider only those available from the Bronze Age and the Archaic periods. However, the evidence of absence in such a newly exposed area does ! not compellingly argue for a lack of continuity. 68 ! Dawkins 1929, 18. 69 Dawkins 1929, 378. 70 Boardman 1998, 54. 71 Boardman 1998, 54. 72 ! Vernant 1991, 151.

! 21 created, or adopted and adapted for a purpose, to fulfill a particular role. Chapter Four will consider more fully the question of what that role might be.

It is impossible to escape the probability that the Potnia Theron schema was influenced by cultures outside of Archaic Greece. Many areas around the Mediterranean basin were subject to acculturation with direct and indirect influences from each other. The above discussion deals briefly with the influence that the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean images may have had on the Archaic image, but it is worth noting that during the Bronze Age both cultures had significant connections with both Egypt and the Near East. The extent of the connections and thus, influence, is however a matter of debate. Michael Cosmopoulos claims that the contact between

Greece and the Near East was more influential than the contact between Greece and Egypt,73 while Nilsson asserts the opposite.74 It is difficult to establish from the archaeological record the level of contact between Greece and the rest of the Mediterranean during the time between the

Bronze Age and the Archaic period. Whether the contact continued through the Dark Age or was renewed afterward is an interesting question, yet difficult to address in the scope of this thesis.

The level of this influence during the Archaic period is important in order to determine the significance of the Potnia Theron schema to the Greeks. More important to discuss, is how much, if at all, these influences determined how the Greeks themselves interpreted the image.

Examples from Crete and the mainland are primarily found on seal stones, with both sarcophagi and cylinder seals being common sources of the pose in the Near East.75 The sharing of such a pose should not excite the level of debate that it does among scholars given that the groups appear to have interacted often. Newmann-Stille argues anthropologically for the theory of acculturation.76 In this theory, direct contact between cultures is less important for the transference of ideas, as is the original source. Instead images and ideas are created in cultures through a variety of means. However, one of the foremost methods, especially in the

Mediterranean where a large number of cultures existed in a relatively small space, was through

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73 Cosmopoulos 1991, bases his study of exchange and contact on evidence of foreign objects found in Crete, and Aegean objects found abroad. The primary evidence of his conclusions come from ‘eastern’ motifs present on Minoan seals, as evidence of the exchange of information of concepts, 160-163, 166. The problems with discussing the Near East as a sole entity and source was mentioned in note 11 above, in addition to Naiden’s conclusion that no single conclusion of transference has won acceptance in note ! 4 above. 74 ! Nilsson 1927, 8-9. 75 ! See Barclay 2001 for an analysis of the Mistress of Animals pose in the Near East. 76 ! Newmann-Stille 2007.

22 contact, conflict, and identity creation. His model differs from others in the understanding that cultures may share a symbol or image without sharing the ideology behind it. Newman-Stille argues that the Minoan Potnia Theron figure was adopted by the Mycenaeans from the Minoans, to fit into a pre-existing Helladic religious system, a system in which a similar figure had previously existed but had not yet been perceived visually. Minoan art may have been attractive as an exotic import, as elite fashion and for its ability to convey traditional ideas in a new manner.77 In this way, according to Newman-Stille, the Mycenaean figure exhibited features that were either meaningless in and of themselves, having been adopted for aesthetics, or showed features that they consciously added to the figure. In the example of the Potnia Theron schema, it is possible that the Mycenaeans adopted the female figure flanked by animals but added the ‘grasping’ feature to convey a different concept. It was likely through the above system that the later Archaic figure was influenced by other cultures.

The Adaptation of the Potnia Theron and Archaic Artemis

In modern scholarship, the Archaic Potnia Theron schema has come to be associated with

Artemis, who has a very interesting iconographic record. In different periods throughout antiquity her identity was used to express a variety of concerns, specifically in regards to youth, rites of passage, animals, and geographic boundaries.78 The goddess usually fronts any discussion of hunting, vengefulness, savagery, and fertility.79 According to Homer, Artemis was the goddess of hunting, of the arrow, and of sudden death for women.80 She was the patron deity of hunters, and the wild. Her role however, has since been synthesized in a discussion by Vernant through an analysis of her various functions. The resulting study created an awareness of similarities between her seemingly disparate functions, which in the words of Robert Parker, gives “this fuzzy awareness [the passage between savagery and civility] a shape and a name.”81 Thus Artemis is now primarily associated with the more flexible position of presiding over liminal stages of life and geographic border areas.82

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 77 ! Crowley 2008, 261; Newmann-Stille 2007, 126. 78 ! Vernant 1991, 196-200; Parker 2011, 91. 79 ! Kahil 1984, 618. 80 ! Vernant 1991, 196; Od. 5.123; 11.172-173; 18.202; 20.60, 80; Skafte-Jensen 2009, 55; Kahil 1984, 618. 81 Parker 2011, 91. 82 ! Vernant 1991, 198 ff; Parker 2011, 91.

! 23 Artemis was associated, especially through her cults at Brauron and Sparta, with the transition of children into adulthood. She was the goddess who presided over the meeting points between the civilized world and the uncivilized wild.83 A number of her sanctuaries can be found in vulnerable border regions outside city environs, supporting the notion that she was involved in liminal areas.84 Her various roles can often conflict, such as her protection of young animals and her huntress aspect. These conflicts make her role as a liminal goddess apt and possibly the only viable explanation. Given Artemis’ concern and affiliation with the wild, it is possible that the

Potnia Theron schema was used as a fitting iconographic model into which Artemis was placed.

The transition of the flanking animals from standing heraldically in the Bronze Age to the held and restrained animals of the Archaic period, marks a change in meaning. I will address additional reasons for the association of the pose with Artemis and the change in the schema’s tone from the Bronze Age to the Archaic period in Chapter Four.

The Archaic schema is very similar to the Bronze Age Potnia Theron, consisting of a central female figure flanked by animals. The differences in the images lie in the types of animals depicted and the interaction displayed between the female figure and the creatures. Unlike the

Bronze Age schema, the flanking animals in the Archaic period were not mythological griffins but of the more mundane variety, ranging from deer, hares, water birds, and finally the more exotic panthers and lions. The Archaic Potnia Theron is typified by her interaction with the flanking animals; she grasps them by various limbs, holding them above the ground and thus renders them helpless (for example fig. 4). The pose itself is emblematic, lacking a narrative framework, which accentuates the absence of a well-understood purpose and meaning.

Characteristics of the Archaic Image

The Archaic Potnia Theron schema essentially shows a central female figure, flanked by animals, similar to the Bronze Age image discussed above. The important difference is in how the central female figure interacts with her attendant animals. In the Archaic image, the female figure typically holds her attendant animals by their legs, or necks (fig. 4). As discussed, unlike the

Bronze Age images, the types of animals vary and the Archaic female often has wings, a feature !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 83 ! Vernant 1991, 196-200; Parker 2011, 91. 84 Vernant 1991, 197-199. In Callimachus’ Hymn to Artemis, she declares ‘Let all the mountains be mine,’ and only rarely descends to ! the city (Call. Hymn to Art. 18).

24 attributed to Near Eastern origins.85 However, winged deities are found in a number of places in the Archaic period (fig. 5). The wings may have been used to define divinity rather than origin, although as discussed above, the adoption of wings into the Greek artists’ repertoire may indicate some form of cultural contact. However, their symbolic significance may not have been the same.

The tripartite pose may signify that the Archaic schema was descended from the Bronze

Age Aegean, or the Near East. However, it is almost certain that the Archaic Greeks adapted the schema to better fit their ideals and concepts. Despite shared iconography, it is unlikely that the concepts represented by the figures within each of the cultures were identical. Different cultural, political systems, and geographic areas give rise to different concerns and ways of interpreting concepts.86 The full pose has clear predecessors in the Mediterranean world, specifically in the

Bronze Age as discussed above. During the Archaic period, the Potnia Theron schema was used in a number of contexts: on vases, votives, and various plaques. Yet towards the end of the

Archaic period her images became less frequent indicating decreased popularity.

Animal representations in the Potnia Theron schema

The Bronze Age Potnia Theron, the Archaic Potnia Theron, and Artemis all share the common imagery of wild animals, which, in conjunction with a brief description of an Archaic image by Pausanias, is the foremost reason for the Potnia Theron schema to have been identified with Artemis. However, while the Archaic figure holds the animals helpless, they do not appear dead, often showing tension and movement (fig. 4). Additionally, the animals portrayed in the

Archaic images commonly depict felines and birds, not animals typically hunted by the Classical

Artemis.87

As established above, either lions or griffins flanked the Creto-Mycenaean figure (fig.1). In contrast, the Archaic Potnia Theron figure is not depicted with mythological animals; she retains the lion but her attendant animals also include panthers, waterfowl, hares, stags or deer (fig. 4, fig. 6). The Archaic female figure holds a variety of animals and does not distinguish one particular type, although felines and birds are by far the most common. This diversity indicates that the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 85 ! Kahil LIMC 1984, 739. 86 ! Newman-Stille 2007, 8; Payne and Payne 2014, 172. 87 Kahil 1984, 748.

! 25 animals were not specific to the goddess in the same way that owls were to Athena, or swans to

Aphrodite. The variety of the animals portrayed lends itself to the identification of an animal goddess or a type of nature goddess. Bodil Hjerrild argues that through featuring animals, the

Potnia Theron figure could be an aspect of the ‘Mother goddess.’88 Yet the existence of such an entity is debatable and the iconography of the so-called ‘Mother goddess,’ namely the large thighs, breasts and general birth scenes are absent from the Potnia Theron schema.89 It is in part the presence of multiple types of animals that has compelled scholars to associate the Archaic

Potnia Theron with the mythical Artemis, goddess of the wild.90

Because of the myriad meanings, inferences and functions of the Classical Artemis, it is important to analyse the way in which the female figure holds and treats the animals in order to determine the nature of the Archaic Potnia Theron schema. The female figure holds her attendant animals in three ways: by the neck, rear legs, or tails, and all appear helpless. Water birds are typical attendants in ivory examples of the Archaic Potniai from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia.

Birds are also associated with the figure on Boeotian vases. Orthia is also a source of lead Potnia

Theron depictions which depict primarily felines, examples of which will be the focus of Chapter

Two. Vases and plaques outside of Orthia depict a variety of animals, also showing particular preference for birds and felines; these will be discussed further in Chapter Three.

Images of the Potnia Theron from the Archaic period occur on different media from the

Bronze Age seals, and originate from different cultural backgrounds. Therefore it is likely that they have different meanings. Potnia Theron schemata do not appear to feature on seals during the

Archaic period. Instead, it appears primarily on pottery, lead figurines and stelai. The important issue to address here is: if the Bronze Age schema is shorthand for a concept, then does the similar Archaic schema represent the same idea? If we consider that the Bronze Age image is a deity associated with animals, as seems evident, it could be that she symbolises a protector of animals. However the pose of the griffins does not support a vulnerable interpretation of their role; they are heraldic and while subordinate they appear to stand by themselves, thus their presence supports and elevates the female figure. Additionally griffins are predators, typically not

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 88 ! Hjerrild 2009, 42. See Christou 1968, for further discussion – unfortunately this text was unavailable to me. 89 Perlès 2001, 256-260. 90 E. g. Larson 2007, 102; Marinatos 2000, 93-95; Vernant 1991, 196-197; Younger and Rehak 2008, 181.

26 the types of animals in need of protection. Indeed, griffins could be indicative of the Bronze Age figure’s divinity, or symbolic of an aggressive, rather than protective role. Unlike the Bronze Age schema, the Archaic schema does not depict griffins, and thus the animals themselves do not represent divinity, but rather the whole schema, through its expression of power, is suggestive of the female’s divinity; an important point when determining the identity of the figure.

Concepts Expressed in the Archaic Schema

It is evident that exchange and cultural contact influenced Greek iconography, although it is unlikely that any deity or their associated iconography was transplanted entirely, as new concepts, ideas and images are often forced to interact with existing cultural practices. The tripartite pose displayed by the Potnia Theron schema can often be seen in depictions of

Egyptian and Eastern deities, notably in depictions of Horus on stelai (fig. 7). However, such tripartite posing is aesthetically pleasing and may have been a template into which the Potnia

Theron figure was placed, possibly void of ideological significance.

Authors such as Marinatos and Izak Cornelius suggest that Artemis owes her commonly portrayed characteristic of violence to Near Eastern predecessors of divine nature goddesses.91

They claim that violence is evident in the way that the Potnia grasps her attendant animals by their legs, throats, or ears. Marinatos justifies an interpretation of violence in the schema by the fact that Artemis is primarily a goddess devoted to the domination of nature, men, and the wild, and that the violent nature of the Archaic depictions represents Artemis acting in a dominant role.92

However, such an explanation assumes that the pose depicts Artemis because it exhibits one of her mythical qualities, power over animals. I contend however, that while the pose later came to represent Artemis, it did so because it was a suitable model into which part of her character could be conveyed. As Chapter Two discusses, the Potnia Theron schema may not have originally depicted Artemis.

Additionally, the term ‘violence’ may not adequately convey the purpose of the pose.

Considering the main purpose of the Egyptian Horus stele, which depicts the god Horus,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 91 Marinatos 2000, 117; See Cornelius 1993 for a discussion of Near Eastern goddesses as Mistress of Animals, as protectors and ! huntresses. 92 ! Marinatos 2011, 95, 117.

! 27 brandishing animals in a similarly ‘violent’ manner, functioned as a protective spell against poisons,93 it is possible that our concept of violence towards animals is not helpful in interpretations. The types of animals in the Horus stelai can be poisonous and dangerous

(including scorpions and importantly, lions) demonstrating that, particularly in this instance, the types of animals are important for the purpose of the spell. Although examples of the Horus stelai are contemporary with the Archaic period a direct comparison would not be helpful considering the animals and gender of the main protagonist are different. However, the purposes of the Horus stelai are known, and can be used to show that the main purpose of a similar pose need not be

‘violence.’ The types of animals portrayed on the Archaic Potnia Theron may have served a similar purpose in conveying the function of the schema, particularly in the case of dangerous feline predators.

Domination is another concept explored through the Potnia Theron schema. If the schema does represent Artemis then it would be plausible to associate the scenes with Classical images of the Artemis as a huntress, expressing her domination over wild animals. This is problematic because it is unclear whether the Potnia Theron schema was originally intended to represent

Artemis. These images exist almost exclusively in the Archaic period, with Artemis appearing in her huntress role in the Classical period. Her associations with animals are well attested, as are

Classical depictions of the goddess killing or dominating deer. However, the identification of the schema should not be reliant the Classical depiction of Artemis enacting domination, specifically because the method of expressing that domination is very different (fig. 8).

In the Classical period Artemis is a maiden huntress goddess, attended by females and nymphs.94 Cult practice is difficult to ascertain, but it is probable that in later periods, young girls worshipped Artemis through dance, such as that described in the Partheneion fragments.95 The nature of her relationship to youths and men was however different. One of her later roles, particularly at Sparta, was that of a koutrophoros, responsible for the health of the youths of the polis.96 This role was used to help explain the cult practice of flagellation. Xenophon describes a

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 93 Abdi 2002, 207; Seele 1947, 43. I wish to express my gratitude to Anne MacKay for mentioning the Horus stele to me at the ! Australasian Society for Classical Studies conference 28-30 January 2014, pers. comm. 94 In Euripides’ Hippolytus she is attended by a male but it is clear that he is unusual and that this was not a common situation (Eurip. ! Hipp. 73-120). 95 Page 1951, 72; Cyrino 2004, 27 ff. 96 ! Nielsen 2009, 84.

28 Spartan practice where before they engaged in battle they first sacrificed a goat to Artemis

Agrotera (Xen. Hell. 4. 2. 20). But this in itself does not appear to be required for victory but rather functioned both as a sacrifice and as an oracular device. The issue regarding how the

Potnia Theron schema may have been interpreted as Artemis will be addressed at length in

Chapter Four.

Summary

The names of both Potnia and possibly Artemis appear on the Linear B Pylos tablets, both apparently referring to goddesses yet never used together.97 The term Potnia Theron seems to have been a term created by Homer, and used just the once as an epithet for Artemis.98 In fact

Potnia is becoming increasingly understood to have been a title rather than a name.99 The use of the schema on Bronze Age seals and sealings in an administrative and possibly religious role may indicate that she represented power over social structures, or functioned to protect the interests of political and religious centres. The flanking animals serve to identify the figure and provide visual aid in supporting the concerns that she represents.

The Archaic Potnia Theron schema is reminiscent of examples from the Bronze Age, the

Near East, and Egypt. Traditionally the pose has been interpreted to express violence and represent domination, but the Archaic schema should not be interpreted based on modern perceptions of these concepts. Concepts and how they are portrayed are culturally constructed and may not appear in the same manner across different cultures. An interpretation of the schema as violent may not be helpful in understanding its function, nor should the concept of domination be used to prove that the figure is Artemis. The attribution of a mythic figure to an emblematic motif is problematic because it ignores concepts that the motif may illustrate independent of that mythic figure, blocking alternative interpretations. Furthermore, religion in the Archaic period was fluid, with little evidence to show that Artemis was established during this time as an independent goddess. It is possible that the animals reflected different functions of the schema, dependent on the purpose of the item decorated.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 97 ! Nosch 2009, 21-29. 98 The term ‘Potnia’ was used multiple times however in the Iliad. Demsky 1998, 57. Van Leuven 1979, 112; Thomas and Wedde 2001, ! 4. 99 ! Van Leuven 1979, 112-113; Thomas and Wedde 2001.

! 29 CHAPTER TWO:

THE SANCTUARY OF ARTEMIS ORTHIA, SPARTA

The sanctuary of Artemis Orthia was an important sanctuary in the Peloponnese, and was famous in the Hellenistic period for a brutal initiatory rite used to satisfy the blood lust of the xoanon cult statue (Paus. 2.16.10-11; Xen. Cons. Lac. 2.8-9). A number of Hellenistic inscriptions identify the site as belonging to Artemis Orthia, or rather the goddess ’Ορθία.100 Yet, as I will argue, such late evidence cannot necessarily be used to identify the site with Artemis during the

Archaic period. There are no extant inscriptions prior to the Hellenistic period identifying a deity at the site. Additionally, a building program occurred c. 570 BCE preceded by a sand layer in the stratigraphy which could indicate an important change or evolution in the types of deities worshipped at the site. Thompson and Larson argue that this change represents the period when the sanctuary and its associated deity were syncretized with the goddess Artemis.101

The first part of this chapter will describe the site and address problems in Dawkins’ chronology as described in his 1929 monograph The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta. The number of Potnia Theron depictions discovered at Orthia, and its significance as one of the few well-established and well-excavated sites of a sanctuary of Artemis renders the sanctuary irreplaceable as a case study. The second part will analyze the Potnia Theron votives from the site, their possible associations with Artemis, and how the cult may have worked within a larger

Spartan cult system.

Located on the bank of the Eurotas river, in the Limnai (Marsh) area, ancient Sparta, the cult site of Artemis Orthia was excavated by Dawkins between 1906-1910, and was published during these years (1906-1910) across four volumes of the British School at Athens Annuals. The

1929 monograph comprehensively covered the excavation and the study of finds at the site, and it will be the main source for the finds described in this chapter. Excavation at the site exposed

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 100 ! Rose 1929, 400. 101 ! Larson 2007, 105 -106.; Thompson 1909, 297.

30 approximately twelve votives depicting the Potnia Theron pose.102 Analysis of these votives is important for this study because they are evidence for the use of the Potnia Theron schema in a sanctuary context during the Archaic period. The use of the schema as votives at a site later associated with Artemis demonstrates a possible connection between the two, and may illustrate further details of how their association occurred.

Noted for the careful excavation at the time, the site of Orthia produced significant finds in an almost unbroken stratigraphy from the 10th century BCE,103 and saw continuous use until the late Roman period. Boardman has since critiqued Dawkins’ 1929 chronology of the site in a 1963 review, arguing that the pottery chronology and thus the dating of the site was too early.104 The site of the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta is located in a natural hollow which was subject to periodic floods.105 Bounded by the edges of this hollow, the site measures approximately 30m east to west with the north-south borders unknown.106 According to Dawkins, the floods resulted in the level of the site being artificially raised in c. 600 BCE. This change was identified in the stratigraphy by a layer of sand and a new building program (fig. 9).107 In contrast, Boardman dates the leveling of the site to c.570/560 BCE at the earliest (the reasons for which will be discussed below).108 A large nine-metre-long altar and a small temple were excavated in the Geometric and

Archaic levels. The altar was covered at one end by a mound of sacrificial debris, burnt bones, and lead figurines.109 Remains of the temple itself are few but according to Dawkins there were numerous finds within the temple foundations and in the sacrificial heap around the altar.110 The

Archaic temple was likely built from unbaked brick with wooden columns.111 The altar and temple were the only architectural finds from the Archaic period, but a large quantity of Geometric and

Archaic pottery, lead figurines, and ivories excavated from around the altar compensate for this lack and indicate that the site was popular during this period. Later architectural finds at the site include the Roman theatre, built to better accommodate spectators at the flagellation, and a large !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 102 This number is based on my own count from the excavation records; there may be more figurines unpublished by the excavation team or missed in my calculations. 103 Dawkins 1929. This dating is based on the original excavators' work, although modern scholars are starting to debate Dawkins' ! system and the dates attributes to the individual pieces found at the site. See Boardman 1963. 104 ! Boardman 1963, 1-7. 105 ! Dawkins 1929, 5. 106 ! Dawkins 1929, 8. 107 ! Dawkins 1929, 19. 108 ! Boardman 1963, 2. 109 ! Dawkins 1929, 9. 110 ! Dawkins 1929, 6, 9. 111 ! Dawkins 1929, 10.

! 31 Late Archaic - early Classical temple which was built above the sand layer, and was positioned partially on top of the earlier Archaic temple (fig. 10).112

The dating system used by the excavators at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia has recently come under debate with scholars such as Boardman and Kopanias arguing that the excavators dated finds earlier than similar finds elsewhere.113 Dawkins dated ivories from the site to the eighth century BCE while Boardman and Kopanias suggest a more likely date of c. 650 BCE based on similar works and styles at sites in Crete and at Nimrud.114 The stratigraphy of the site, as described in Chapter One, AO, is unusual. Apart from the thick sand layer there were no clear dividing lines between the strata, and many of the votive finds were in a mound (fig. 9), making dating based on horizontal strata impractical.115 While the excavators acknowledged this problem, the dating model that they created was contrived to appear tidier than the reality. According to

Boardman some of the pottery under the sand layer dates to a later period than Dawkins suggests, Archaic rather than Geometric.116 Dawkins dates the sand layer to 600 BCE, but

Boardman suggests a more likely date of 570 BCE based on pottery chronology. According to

Boardman the dating system has been problematic in the past with previous scholars acknowledging the probability of Dawkins’ dating being too early, yet, rarely adding corrections into their own research.117 Boardman only briefly addresses how the change in chronology affects the dating of the ivories and lead figurines that concern this study, but concludes that a reasonable date for the ivories ranges from c. 650 – 600 BCE, fitting into the late ‘Laconian I’ and

‘Laconian II’ styles in the dating schema on the table below.118 Unfortunately a comprehensive re- analysis of the finds at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia is not within the scope of this thesis.

However, Boardman’s dating is likely more accurate as he has a greater basis and background of pottery to draw examples from. For the sake of consistency and accuracy I will use the approximate dates provided by Boardman in his 1963 article “Artemis Orthia and Chronology.”

Accurate dating is important for this study because the Potnia Theron figures became less !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 112 ! Dawkins 1929, 3, 30-34. 113 Boardman 1963; Kopanias 2009, there are similarities among the ivories to works from the Palace Hasanlu in Iran dating from the ! 9th century BCE, and Cretan models found on pithoi, 123-126. 114 ! Boardman 1963, 1-7; Kopanias 2009, 123, 130. 115 ! Boardman 1963, 1, note 2. 116 ! Boardman 1963, 2-3. 117 Boardman 1963, 1. Unfortunately Boardman does not provide the names of these scholars. This study will not be considering datings based on Dawkins chronology, instead following Boardman’s model. While Boardman does acknowledge that more work needs to be done to verify his conclusions, the pottery chronology that he provides is relatively sound. 118 Boardman 1963, 4-5.

32 popular, both as figurines and on vase paintings, near the end of the Archaic period. The sand

layer at the site of the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia provides an established date from which we

may compare the usage of the schema. Specific dates for when the schema became popular are

unknown, and as discussed above, it may be that the Archaic schema owes much to its earlier

Bronze Age counterparts.

Table 1: Comparison of dates from Dawkins and Boardman

! Dawkins AO Boardman 1963 Potnia Theron

‘Geometric’ 9th cent.- 675BCE 8th cent. – 650 BCE

Laconian I 700-635 BCE 650-620 BCE Ivory plaques

Laconian II (to the sand) 635-600 BCE 620-570/560 BCE Lead Figurines

Laconian II (as a style) 620-580 BCE

The Sand 600 BCE 570/560 BCE

Lead III-IV 600 -550 BCE 560– 500 BCE (relative) No examples

The Potnia Theron schema at the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia

Examples of the Potnia Theron schema were only found below to the sand layer; therefore

their popularity at the site survived only until c. 570/560 BCE. Figures, words or styles commonly

occur in short bursts. They are typically fashionable for a certain length of time and change

accordingly when new artistic styles and techniques are developed. Images are also dependent

on the popularity of cults, and their associated deities. The time during which the schema was

used is significant because it coincides with the period during which religion in Greece,

specifically during the Geometric and Archaic periods, was not settled, in fact it was rather fluid.

Localities had specific deities and the Olympian gods were affiliated with them through imagery

and areas of dominance.119 In the words of Parker, “It was commonplace that no two Greek

political communities worshipped exactly the same gods…”120 Trade and exchange brought

Egyptian and Near Eastern influences upon Greece resulting in shifting and amalgamated

religions with features from various geographic and cultural points. These amalgamated religions !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 119 Naiden 2013, 398; Vernant 1991; Parker 2011, 70. 120 Parker 2011, 70.

! 33 make the concept of a single coherent Greek religion erroneous.121 Greece was not politically cohesive at any point in antiquity, nor were religious practices consistent across the regions. The

Olympians were favoured by all the Greek states, each claiming favour from Zeus and others, but these gods were worshipped in different ways and under many different epithets. The different epithets attributed to the gods emphasize the importance of local variations, and in some cases acknowledge the individual, local deities who contributed to the growth of the larger, and more popular gods. There were similarities and a degree of consistency in sacrificial practices, although overall cult practices were not uniform, nor were particular attributes of the gods, again highlighting the contribution of local deities. This fluidity and uncertainty in Greek religion is the reason I consider the attribution of the Potnia Theron figures to Artemis to be premature.

The Potnia Theron figures at Orthia appear on two types of medium, small lead figurines and ivory plaques, which will be discussed below (fig. 14 and fig. 15). They were found in the large deposit around the Archaic altar, amongst many other finds, all of which very likely functioned as votives. Both Dawkins and Thompson were amazed at the sheer number of finds and detail of the pieces.122 Over one hundred thousand lead figurines were excavated, covering a period from approximately the 8th – 6th century BCE.123 The full Potnia Theron schema was relatively rare in lead, occurring possibly only five times in the publication AO 1929 (fig. 11). The individual winged female figurine was particularly common (fig. 12), alongside a multitude of independent animal figurines (fig. 13). Thompson argues that the individual figurine was intended to represent the central female in the full schema.124 However, there are examples of individual winged females figurines holding wreaths, although many figures did not survive well, and are lacking hands. The absence of flanking animals with a number of figurines, and the fact that some hold wreaths causes difficulty in interpreting the individual winged female as representative of the

Potnia Theron figure. Because of this uncertainty this study will not consider them as part of the schema. Amongst the lead votives, there were also a number of warrior figurines and Athena types present after c. 570/560 BCE. The second medium, ivory, was less common at the site and only occurs prior to the sand layer. Like the lead votives, it does not exclusively depict the Potnia

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 121 ! Naiden 2013b 389. 122 ! Thompson 1909, 287; Dawkins 1929, 16; Wace 1929, 249. 123 ! Thompson 1909, 287. 124 Thompson 1909, identifies the winged lead figurine with the Potnia Theron schema, arguing that they are representative of the same goddess, later associated with Artemis, 289, 295.

34 Theron schema, but also the Master of Animals schema and the Tree of Life motif.125 The ivory plaques, which depict the Potnia Theron schema, were produced c 650 – 600 BCE and will be the focus of the discussion below.126

Ivory Potnia Theron depictions

Seven ivories, of approximately forty excavated, depict the full Potnia Theron schema. All of these hold birds (fig. 14 and fig. 15). Two of the ivories hold additional animals with figure 14b, holding a leopard in her left hand and figure 15c, having a snake hanging from her right arm as if it had leapt to bite her, an uncommon scene. Her left hand is damaged and it is impossible to see what she may have once been holding. A third ivory, similar to the snake ivory, also has a damaged left hand; in her right she is holding a long-necked bird, either a crane or a stork (fig.

15a). The Orthia ivories depict females with clear connections to birds. The presence of two different animals, a snake and a leopard, within the schema indicates that the image had further associations with animals in general.

The analysis of the seven ivory examples of the Potnia Theron schema is particularly important for this study as it will analyse reasons for depicting the schema with birds in particular, and demonstrate possible uses and interpretations of ivory votives at the sanctuary of Artemis

Orthia.

The ivory plaques excavated are typically labeled as fibulae, due to a number exhibiting two small holes along their center lines,127 and two examples with a pin still attached (fig. 14b).

The drilled holes are indications that the plaques were certainly at some stage attached to something, although the nature of the attachments are unclear. In a re-evaluation, Kopanias compares them to similar plaques which functioned as furniture decoration from the palace of

Shalmaneser II at Nimrud.128 The holes may have been used to fasten the plaques onto different types of media, and Kopanias notes that they may have had multiple functions. It is possible that the fibulae originally functioned as decorative plaques and later had fibulae attached in order to

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 125 ! Kopanias 2009, 124. 126 ! Kopanias 2009, 123-4. 127 Dawkins 1929, 204. 128 ! Kopanias 2009, 130.

! 35 function in a different manner.129 The material is also important for analysis as ivory is a luxury commodity and thus would have been appropriate for dedication at the sanctuary as a means for showing devotion to a deity. The elaborate decoration on the plaques, the material used, and their dedication at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia is indicative of their importance to the sanctuary itself, the deity, and to the rites which occurred at the site.

Dawkins divided the Orthia ivories into a six different styles, numerically named: First Style,

Second Style, Third Style et cetera (although not necessarily chronological).130 The ivories depicting the Potnia Theron schema only occur within the first two styles, the First Style and

Second Style. There are only six ivories within the First style, three of which depict the Potnia

Theron schema (fig. 14) and which date to c. 650 BCE.131 They are characterized by their low relief and their large, almost exaggerated facial features, or in the words of Dawkins “the clumsiness of the modeling, the broadness of the raised borders, and the carrying out of the decoration and details by coarsely incised lines.”132 The other First Style ivories include a horseman and a heterogeneous couple holding a 'tree of life.'

The Second Style ivories make up the majority found at the site, seventeen found overall.133 This style was found throughout the stratigraphic layers prior to c. 570/560 BCE, with three examples being found with pottery contemporary with the First Style ivories. Therefore, while Dawkins does not explicitly say so, this style was likely being produced approximately during the same period as the First Style ivories and approximately fifty years later. The Second style is characterized through a slightly larger size, deeper relief, rounder modeling, and finely executed incisions.134

It is possible that the First Style ivories are not evidence of an earlier style, but given the parallel stratigraphy of three Second Style ivories, may imply that they were contemporary, and instead crafted at a different workshop or by a different artist. Without a larger sample of the type

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 129 ! Kopanias 2009, 130. 130 ! Dawkins 1929, 203 131 Five of the six First Style ivories date to c. 650 BCE according to the stratigraphy. The sixth one dates to a later period according to the stratigraphy. However, Dawkins notes that this final ivory may belong with the early five, not only due to stylistic similarities, but also because its findspot was in an area where the stratigraphy had been disturbed in antiquity with the sinking of new foundations for the later temple. Dawkins 1929, 205. Additionally I have only pictured two of the ivories as the third is identical to figure 14a. 132 ! Dawkins 1929, 205. Because of the ‘primitive’ look of the first style ivories, Boardman argues that they date to 650 BCE, 1963, 4. 133 Dawkins 1929, 206. 134 Dawkins 1929, 206.

36 it is difficult to accurately assess whether they should be considered as separated in period or as coming from different workshops. Evidence from Dawkins stratigraphy, from which we may consider the relative dating accurate, suggests that the ivories were produced during approximately the same period.

The two First Style Potnia Theron ivories display few differences to those of the Second style. The primary difference, aside from prominent facial features, is that their wings sprout from their waists instead of their shoulders. This may have been to avoid the problematic issue of depicting breasts frontally or it may be due to particular stylistic preferences of a workshop or artist.135 One of the Second Style Potnia Theron figures also has this particular waist-wing set-up, illustrating that the styles may not have been discrete, contained multiple artists, and were perhaps produced at a similar time. Two of the First Style Potnia Theron figures are almost identical: they hold a bird in each hand by their necks. The birds are large enough that their feet rest on the ground line and they are depicted with wide circular eyes. Figure 14a measures 4.7 cm x 3.9 cm and the other, an almost identical ivory, has a damaged bottom left corner, reconstructed by Dawkins, measures 5 cm x 4 cm. The third First Style Potnia Theron measures 6 cm x 3.7 cm and depicts the central female holding a smaller bird in her right hand, its feet resting against her skirt, and a lion or leopard, held by its rear legs in her left (fig. 14b). All three of these ivories depict the female in nearly identical, highly decorated garments and wearing a high almost crown-like headdress.

The four Second Style Potnia ivories can be further divided into two pairs. One pair depicts a frontal female figure grasping two birds with two more perched on her shoulders (fig.

15a and 15b). These are the only two of the six Potnia ivories that are depicted frontally, with all others adhering to the relief sculptural technique depicting a frontal body and profile head and feet.136 Both of these ivories are almost identical in composition, perhaps having been made by the same artist or workshop and maybe providing matching decoration on either side of a box or piece of furniture. On figure 15b it is not clear due to weathering if the birds are indeed perched on the female’s shoulders or if they are hovering, while on figure 15a the birds are most definitely

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 135 It is also possible that the waist-wings are in fact shown as if from the back, with the female figure looking over her shoulder. But ! given the position of the females' fingers, sketchy though they may be, this seems rather unlikely. 136 ! Korshak 1987, 1, 31; Pedley 2012, 187.

! 37 perched on the female’s shoulders. Much like figure 14a and 14b of the First Style, the held birds are large enough that their feet touch the ground line. Both females wear a small crown-like headdress and have crosshatched dresses.

The composition of the four birds within the two frontal Potnia Theron ivories introduces a different and potentially important aspect to the figure. The females grasp the two of the birds in their hands, rendering them helpless; however, the birds that sit on their shoulders demonstrate willingness and a voluntary presence. It is this contrast that could identify the figures with Artemis.

The contrast may be represented in her mastery over the helpless animals, and in the willingness of the perched birds to be near her. This may illustrate both her huntress aspect and the protective function that Artemis displays toward young animals. This contrast will be discussed further in Chapter Four while determining if the Potnia Theron figure could be associated with

Artemis in the Archaic period.

The final pair of Second Style ivory Potniae are both damaged on their left, each missing an arm (fig. 15c and 15d). One of these Potnia Theron figurines holds a bird by its neck in her right hand while a snake hangs by its fangs from her arm (fig. 15c). The construction is unusual for the Potnia Theron schema, as she has two animals distributed along one arm. It is unclear due to the damage on her left-hand side whether her left arm also bore two animals, although given the typical symmetry of the schema, it is likely that her left arm also bore two animals. The choice of animal is also unusual. Snakes are not typically found in depictions of the Potnia Theron, although there are a few cases where it is possible that snakes were part of the schema (fig. 16). The position of the snake, as if it had leapt towards her may be comparable to the birds who are perched on the shoulders of the frontal Potniae discussed above; they may represent a willingness to be close to the female. The types of animals depicted with the female figure in the schema are limited, and so perhaps her role is not necessarily with animals as a group but it may be the case that certain animals can mean different things, and it is these things that the schema is depicting. This is another possibility which will be discussed further in Chapter Four. The final damaged ivory Potnia Theron from the sanctuary is very fragmentary, but like the previous five, appears to be holding a bird (fig. 15d). However, unlike the other birds depicted, which are relatively uniform with short necks and blocky wings, this final bird very clearly depicts a bird with a long neck and long legs, a water bird: a crane or a stork.

38 Summary of Ivory figurines

The Potnia Theron ivories from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia date to c. 650 - 600 BCE.137

All of the ivories show a central female figure flanked by birds, with only one example showing a lion or leopard, and one with an additional snake. From these ivories alone the figures should be appropriately known as "Mistress of Birds," perhaps as a smaller subset of the broader “Mistress of Animals” schema. The site of the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia was located in a marshy area where birds of many types would have been common. Perhaps the ivories depict a goddess associated with animals, but since the most common animals in the area were birds it is appropriate that the ivories illustrated this. The lone leopard and snake evidently show that the female was not solely associated with birds, but also with other animals. The presence of wild animals indicates that the ivory Potnia Theron figurines were associated somehow with the wild.

The contrast of the helpless animals and the willing birds on two of the ivories could show the same contrasting attitude that Artemis displays in her interactions with the wild, which may help explain reasons for her later association.

Lead Figurines

In addition to the ivory votives, over one hundred thousand lead figurines were also excavated at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, ranging in height from 2.5cm to 8cm.138 The Potnia

Theron schema in lead exhibits different features to the ivory plaques. Through an analysis of the use of the schema in lead, I will demonstrate that the different medium influences how the schema is portrayed. The lead figurines portrayed a variety of figures; some depicted individual females, or independent animals, but only five depict the Potnia Theron schema. Some lead figurines were in the form of warriors, and others appear to depict Athena. The sheer number of finds in the lead deposit restricts a full analysis of the female figures, but this section will analyze the ‘full’ figurines found and discuss a representative sample of what Thompson calls

'abbreviated' forms of the Potnia Theron pose;139 independent winged females and individual animals.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 137 ! Dawkins 1929, 104; Kopanias 2009, 123; Boardman 1963, 4. 138 ! Richer 2007, 237. 139 ! Thompson 1909, 293.

! 39 Among the thousands of lead figurines published in Dawkins’ 1929 treatise, only five depict the full Potnia Theron schema, although there are many that may have once depicted the schema but have since been damaged (fig. 11). Lions flank three of the surviving Potnia Theron figurines, similar to the Cretan examples discussed in Chapter One. Another example holds a small lion in her left hand, and may have held another in her right, although it is now lost (fig.

11d). The final example is a lead plaque which appears to be an imitation of the ivories, it depicts the female holding two birds by their necks (fig. 11e).

Despite the survival of so few full Potnia Theron figures among many figurines, Thompson argues that they are representative of the goddess Orthia.140 The difference in flanking animals - predominantly birds on ivory votives and lions on lead votives - may indicate that the animals had different purposes. One possibility is that the lead figurine with birds was made in conscious imitation of the ivories, although equally their presence on lead might indicate it may not have necessarily been the material which was important, but rather the animals.

Among the other lead figurines are a large number of winged females which could also depict the goddess Orthia,141 but because of their small size, age, and delicacy, a number of them appear to have lost their arms (fig. 12). Consequently it is impossible to determine solely on iconographical grounds whether these figures were originally part of a full schema as figures 11a- e appear to have been, or instead existed as independent females.

The lead figurines have distinct fronts and smooth backs, and appear to have been cast.142

Many show close similarities but are not the same; therefore casts were likely temporary, made from terracotta, or were in use over a significant period of time resulting in the wearing down of the mould. The sheer quantity of lead figurines, their similarities, and method of construction means that they were probably modeled on-site by local artisans.143 Wace divides the leads into seven different periods, like the ivories, named numerically as Lead I, Lead II, Lead III, et cetera.

Lead I-II consists of 15 267 figurines found in the strata beneath the sand layer, dating from the 8th century to 570/560 BCE. They were found primarily between the Archaic temple and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 140 ! Thompson 1909, 292-293. 141 Among the Lead I-II levels there are approximately forty-six independent winged goddesses. Wace 1929, 259, 268. 142 ! Wace 1929, 252. 143 ! Thompson 1909, 292.

40 the Archaic altar, with approximately 776 found within the foundations of the later temple

(indicating that they may have been used as fill), and a number found towards the south of the sanctuary.144 Lead III-IV consist of the largest numbers, 68 822 figurines found above the sand layer,145 dating from approximately 570/560 - 470 BCE. Lead V-VI exhibit continuity in the method of votary offerings until c. 250 BCE.146

The significant increase in Lead III-IV above the sand layer indicates increased popularity of the sanctuary and a greater availability of lead source to the populace. However, after the sand layer, although lead figurines remained in production and increased in popularity, the types produced underwent an important change: the Potnia Theron figurines were no longer produced.147 This is perhaps reflecting a similar change or relationship with the lack of ivory votives after this point.

Prior to the sand layer, Lead 0-II, the moulds of the lead appear to be thicker, and more distinct than those of the later periods.148 Wace notes that the moulds used for Leads 0-II could easily have been used for jewelry and fine ware, and states that the later pieces appear more like

“cheap votive offerings made in hundreds of thousands to fill a popular demand.”149 The sand layer thus appears to have introduced a period of prosperity of lead, just as the luxury commodity ivory stopped functioning as a votive in this same period, replaced instead with bone.150 It is worth noting that the lead may not have functioned as a cheap commodity as Wace suggests as it needed to be imported,151 and furthermore the value of votives are not necessarily based on their material but rather their symbolic value as will be discussed below in Chapter Four.152

Wace identifies twenty-one varieties of females holding circular objects, which may be wreaths in the Lead I stratum with a further thirty in Lead II (fig. 17). There also appear to be two examples of winged females holding these wreaths. Wace separates the female figure from the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 144 Wace 1929, 251. 145 ! Wace 1929, 251. 146 ! Wace 1929, 252. 147 Wace 1929, 270. 148 ! Wace 1929, 253. 149 ! Wace 1929, 253. 150 ! Dawkins 1929, 215. 151 Gill and Vickers 2001, 229-230. 152 I would like to express my gratitude to Gina Salapata pers. comm. Australasian Society for Classical Studies Conference 28-30 January 2014, Massey University, Palmerston North.

! 41 winged females, naming them as natural subjects, and does not associate them with depictions of a goddess.153 The winged females could be representative of the central female in the Potnia

Theron schema, and theoretically the figures without hands could have originally been holding animals. But the presence of so many figures, including two winged females holding wreaths, and not animals, makes this suggestion impossible to prove. Thompson does not address the circular objects in his study, instead tracing a degradation of the figurines over the centuries from the full schema to these independent and piecemeal figures, the least of which depicts the female reduced to a triangle figure with a small almost non-existent head and stubby wings (fig. 18).

Thompson attributed this degradation to a decline in the availability of lead and possibly a lessening of importance in depicting the goddess in this way.154 This may have been due to the prevailing view of scholarship at the time where it was thought that traditional ‘Archaic’ cults must depict their statues in a ‘primitive’ manner.155 Such a change in iconography may indicate changing fashions and possibly a complete change in deity worshipped at the site. However, it may also have been due to an understanding that the simpler figures represented the full figure despite their ‘unfinished’ look.

The winged female lead figurines by no means represented the majority of figurines in the cache. Much like the ivory figures, there were many examples of the Master of Animals, warriors and animals.156 Unfortunately, unlike the ivories, the full lead figurines are fragmentary and my analysis is reliant on the reconstructions that Wace provides seen in figure 11.157 A distinctive detail of the lead figurines is that the central females are flanked by lions, rather than the ubiquitous birds of the ivories. The lead type which depict lions is similar to the Cretan Bronze

Age schema as discussed in Chapter One, and may be the result of influence from Crete or Greek vase painting.158 Given the exclusivity of lions in lead and birds in ivory perhaps there is something that we are missing, although the presence of the leopard alongside a bird in figure 14b may !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 153 Wace 1929, 268. Wace distinguishes the lead varieties into categories based on their chronological value and their specific decorations. The female votives are distinguished from mythical subjects such as the winged goddess, as the excavators determined ! that they depicted devotees rather than the goddess. 154 ! Thompson 1909, 293. 155 Donohue 1988, investigates the traditional assumptions around the uses of the term χοανα, and its use in scholarship. Traditionally the term was understood to mean “early, primitive, crude, stiff, wooden, or aniconic” figure. Yet Pausanias use it primarily to refer to wooden statues that he believed were ‘ancient,’ 1. However, Donohue argues that the notion that xoanon were basic and crude are modern notions. Instead, she postulates that xoanon could have been fully accomplished statues, in wood, which preceded the same sculptural types in marble, 175. 156 ! Thompson 1909, 290. 157 ! Wace 1929, 260-261: Fig. 119, 120, 121. 158 ! Kopanias 2009, 127-128.

42 discredit this notion. Does the use of the different materials, ivory and lead, mean something different? Were these particular votives used in different rituals for different purposes? Or did they express different aspects of one goddess?

Among the leads at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia a vast number of independent animal figurines including lions, griffins, deer, horses, and fish were found. Thompson discusses these animals as if they were originally intended to stand beside individual female figurines, creating composite Potnia Theron figurines.159 While this is possible, it is more likely that the animals were produced to stand alone. Production of the leads through the use of casts means that the production of animal figurines and the Potnia Theron figures would have been similarly labour- intensive. Why would a devotee dedicate an animal as representative of the whole schema when the full schema and individual animals required approximately the same cost and labour? It is more likely that the individual animal figurines played a different votive role from that of the

Potnia Theron figurines, a concept that will be further developed in Chapter Four.

Rose suggests that the individual animals may have been representative of sacrificial animals.160 However, the most common animals found in the lead cache, i.e. lions, griffins, horses, and fish, do not typically feature as sacrificial animals in Greek religion.161 Deer, an animal closely associated with Artemis in myth, are not present in the lead collection until after the sand layer,162 approximately 570-560 BCE.163 Thompson attributes the introduction of deer into the votive collection to the approximate time when Artemis became syncretized with the local deity at the sanctuary in Sparta. Wace clearly states in his discussion of the lead figurines that the deer arrive in the Lead III-IV strata, above the sand layer. This coincides with when the Potnia Theron schema ceases to be used, and figurines appearing to depict Athena, Poseidon, and possibly the huntress

Artemis appear.164 This change in depictions could illustrate that the Potnia Theron schema did not represent Artemis at this early date.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 159 ! Thompson 1929, 293-295. 160 ! Rose 1929, 402. 161 See Leagros Group Olpe (Mommsen 1991, pl. 36.2) for a possible depiction of a fish sacrifice; although it may also just show a large ! catch. 162 Wace 1929, 277. 163 Boardman 1963, 2. 164 ! Thompson 1909, 295; Wace 1929, 273-274.

! 43 One lead figurine, above the sand layer, depicts a female holding a bow which might represent Artemis and another which shows a female wearing an aegis and holding a bow (fig.

19). These are the only two examples of lead figurines possibly depicting Artemis in her huntress aspect. The fact that they occur above the sand layer indicates that this may have been a new image, now attributable to Artemis. However, the number of Athena-types from Lead III-IV at twelve examples, is far superior to these two, one of which wears an aegis as if depicting

Athena.165 Wace comments that the number of Athena-types could be identified with Athena except for the fact that they occur at the shrine of Orthia.166 The distinct iconography however implies that they should be associated more firmly with Athena rather than Artemis – perhaps indicating that in the period after c. 570/560 BCE the sanctuary diversified, and the primary deity was not necessarily settled, or that Athena was also worshipped here. The study of the lead figurines after the sand layer, the subsequent building of the temple, and the development of the sanctuary into the Hellenistic entity should be reconsidered in a different study.

Above the sand layer, winged goddesses continue to be depicted, but the variety of animals disappears and deer figurines are introduced. The Classical Artemis, among other goddesses, is occasionally depicted with wings to illustrate divinity (fig. 20) but by the time of

Pausanias, admittedly much later, this practice was evidently out of use. When confronted with a

Potnia Theron figure on the archaic Chest of Kypselos, Pausanias remarks that he has no idea why

Artemis should have wings:

Ἄρτεµις δὲ οὐκ οἶδα ἐφ᾽ ὅτῳ λόγῳ πτέρυγας ἔχουσά ἐστιν ἐπὶ τῶν ὤµων, καὶ τῇ µὲν δεξιᾷ κατέχει πάρδαλιν, τῇ δὲ ἑτέρᾳ τῶν χειρῶν λέοντα.

On what account Artemis has wings on her shoulders I do not know; in her right hand she holds a

leopard, in her left a lion (Paus. 5.19.5).167

The wings were evidently a symbol of some early goddesses and their frequency at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia before and after the sand layer implies that this was a common depiction of the particular goddess who was the subject of veneration at the sanctuary. The direct meaning of wings are unclear, but it was likely a method of identifying deities, although in the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 165 The Athena types occur in the Lead III-IV strata. They are typically identifies by the snake One depicts the aegis and bow as discussed above; twelve depict an aegis and a spear; one depicts an aegis, a spear, and a shield. 166 Wace 1929, 274. 167 This account of Pausanias, and a further analysis of the Chest of Kypselos will be discussed in Chapter Four.

44 same way, Archaic art also displays many deities without wings. Why deities began to be depicted without wings in the early Classical Period is ambiguous, although a change in fashion is reasonable to assume. Wings were also a common feature of Near Eastern goddesses, but the direct level of influence is unclear, and it is unlikely that the ancient Greeks considered the depiction of wings on goddesses a Near Eastern import. Instead it is likely that they attributed the depiction of wings to earlier, more local deities.

Spartan Religion in the Archaic Period

Very little is known about cult practice during the Archaic period, let alone during the

Archaic period in Laconia. There are no extant religious texts from the Archaic period, although

Homeric epics, the Epic Cycle and Hesiod’s works describe different beliefs and sacrificial practices. Hesiod’s Works and Days and the Homeric Hymns might provide evidence of the sacrificial customs and some beliefs of the Archaic Greeks. However, the epics should not be considered religious texts. Despite the inevitable pitfalls in a discussion of cult practice and its many diversities, such a discussion is important in order to determine the role that the Potnia

Theron image may have played at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia.

Later authors such as Pausanias provide our most detailed descriptions of locally specific rites to deities (for example Paus. 7. 18.11-13; 3. 10. 7).168 But these are not particularly reliable in terms of demonstrating the practiced beliefs of the earlier Archaic Greeks, simply because these sources are so much later. Unfortunately they are some of the only evidence that we have for cult practice, and from which we have constructed an incomplete understanding of earlier practices. It is evident from Pausanias’ many descriptions of specific cults, that Greek beliefs, practices and cults were relatively diverse. Cult sites and the implements of cult can be reasonably similar and are accessible to scholars through the archaeological record. The specific deities to whom ritual practices were aimed, are also ‘a matter of speculation,’ with archaeological evidence exhibiting cult implements rather than indicating belief.169 However, Pausanias’ descriptions of religious practices can be used to speculate about earlier rituals.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 168 The cult practice of Artemis Laphria at Patrae, formerly at Kalydon, is specifically impressive with a large sacrifice of live animals on fire. Nilsson 1925 1925, 144; Mejer 2009b 79-80. 169 ! Naiden 2013b, 389.

! 45 Nicholas Richer argues that the Spartans, as a subset of the Lacedaemonians, did not differ in essence from the religious beliefs of the rest of the Greek world.170 They were subject to the same laws as the rest of Greece; the laws of gaining supernatural favour through appropriate action.171 Sacrifices, votive offerings and promises were the chief means through which a human might gain favour with a deity. Evidence of large caches of votive offerings from the sanctuary of

Artemis Orthia supports Richer’s assessment. However, cult practices were often specific to localities,172 and considering the social differences that distinguished Sparta from other Greek poleis it would not be surprising if certain aspects of their cult practices deviated also. The unique initiatory ritual practiced at the sanctuary from the Classical period onwards is evidence for the local nature of some Spartan rituals.

Details and specific functions of cult practice are elusive, and unfortunately it is unlikely that the exact purpose of the Potnia Theron votives in Spartan ritual will be determined beyond doubt. According to Naiden, the Greek gods could be considered as natural phenomena, but also beings with personalities, an idea which spanned the Greek world.173 Thus, a major concern of scholarship on Greek religion is to find a middle ground connecting deities, their different aspects, and the phenomena that they are associated with.174 The image of the Potnia Theron expresses different aspects of a goddess and may even illustrate a specific phenomenon, particular at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia.

Epigraphic material in and about early Sparta is limited and written almost exclusively by non-Spartans.175 The earliest Greek literary source who mentions the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia is the Classical writer Xenophon (Xen. Cons. Lac. 2.8-9). Pausanias discusses the initiatory whipping ordeal, as demanded by the cult statue, through the words of an oracle:

ἡ δὲ ἱέρεια τὸ ξόανον ἔχουσά σφισιν ἐφέστηκε: τὸ δέ ἐστιν ἄλλως µὲν κοῦφον ὑπὸ σµικρότητος, ἢν δὲ οἱ µαστιγοῦντές ποτε ὑποφειδόµενοι παίωσι κατὰ ἐφήβου κάλλος ἢ ἀξίωµα, τότε ἤδη τῇ γυναικὶ τὸ ξόανον γίνεται βαρὺ καὶ οὐκέτι εὔφορον, ἡ δὲ ἐν αἰτίᾳ τοὺς µαστιγοῦντας ποιεῖται καὶ πιέζεσθαι δι᾽ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 170 ! Richer 2007, 236-237. Fundamentally, the Spartan pantheon did not differ from the rest of the Greek world. 171 ! Richer 2007, 237; Naiden 2013a, 3, 6; Naiden 2013b, 391. 172 ! Dowden 2007, 41-42. 173 ! Naiden 2013b, 391. 174 ! See for example discussions in Vernant 1991; Naiden 2013, 394; Parker 2011; Versnel 2011. 175 Hodgkins 1999, The material available is fraught with difficulties regarding the self-identification of the Spartans, and later the Helots, xvii. The external evidence, written from the outside primarily focuses on depicting Sparta’s ‘otherness,’ xviii. In scholarship also, Sparta has often been presented as an ideal model society. This was the result of Hellenistic and Roman scholars selectively creating a Spartan structure from earlier writers such as Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle. Morris and Hodgkinson 2012, viii-ix.

46 αὐτούς φησιν. οὕτω τῷ ἀγάλµατι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν τῇ Ταυρικῇ θυσιῶν ἐµµεµένηκεν ἀνθρώπων αἵµατι ἥδεσθαι.

The priestess stands near them holding the xoanon. Now it is small and light, but if at any time, the

scourgers spare the lash because of a boy’s beauty or rank, then immediately the statue becomes

heavy and the priestess can hardly carry it. She blames the scourgers, and says that it is their fault

that she is being weighed down. So the image, since the sacrifices in the Tauric lands keeps its

pleasure for human blood. (Paus. 3.16.11).

In contrast, Xenophon discusses the ritual in terms of its social benefits and as a part in the training of Spartan youths:

καὶ ὡς πλείστους δὴ ἁρπάσαι τυροὺς παρ᾽ Ὀρθίας καλὸν θείς, µαστιγοῦν τούτους ἄλλοις ἐπέταξε, τοῦτο δηλῶσαι καὶ ἐν τούτῳ βουλόµενος ὅτι ἔστιν ὀλίγον χρόνον ἀλγήσαντα πολὺν χρόνον εὐδοκιµοῦντα εὐφραίνεσθαι. δηλοῦται δὲ ἐν τούτῳ ὅτι καὶ ὅπου τάχους δεῖ ὁ βλακεύων ἐλάχιστα µὲν ὠφελεῖται, πλεῖστα δὲ πράγµατα λαµβάνει.

He made it a point of honour to snatch as many cheeses as possible from the place of Orthia, but

appointed others to scourge the thieves, intending to show that by enduring pain for a short time

one may win lasting fame and felicity. It is thus shown that where there is need of speed, the slow,

as usual, gets little consequence and many troubles. (Xen. Cons. Lac. 2. 9-10)

In neither case is the cult practice readily associated with any aspect what might be linked with the Potnia Theron schema, or any ritual that might be associated with the votives discussed above. Only Alcman's Partheneion could possibly be considered contemporary, although it is extremely fragmentary resulting in limited usefulness.176 The Partheneion appears to describe a dancing competition, a common practice in many other cults.177 The deity to whom the dance is ascribed is somewhat contentious, with some scholars claiming that it is to a goddess named

Orthia, and others claiming it is dedicated to another deity entirely.178 Precisely which deity the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 176 ! Page 1951, v. 177 ! Page 1951, 72; Cyrino 2004,25. 178 Cyrino 2004 provides a detailed analysis of the evidence and arguments about the identity of the deity to whom the dance and chorus is directed. According to Cyrino most scholars agree that the lyric poem describes a community performance the nature of which may have been initiatory, as both “a ceremony of display and a rite of passage would function as a sort of ancient equivalent to the contemporary high-society Debutante Ball…” 26. Possible names of the goddess who presided over the initiation are Orthria and Aotis which both appear to refer to an association with the dawn, the transition between morning and night. The most popular view is that these names are epithets for Artemis, both because of her association with female choruses (cee Calame 1977) and her associations with initiations. The epithet Orthria could be a variant on Orthia, but there is no epigraphic evidence of Orthia being used during the Archaic period, and it does not fit the meter of the verse. However the possible link with Artemis is not easily dropped, and some consider the link that Artemis may have had with Eileithyia in Laconia indicates that the Parteneion may have been dedicated to her. However, the girls in the chorus emphasize their youth making Eileithyia, a goddess of birth and fecundity an inappropriate

! 47 ceremony is dedicated to is unclear, although it should be noted that the practice of dancing is well ascribed to the later Artemis and she is often described in terms of her dancing nymphs

(Paus. 3. 10. 7; Hom. Hym. Art. 27. 11-20).179 However, the poem is extremely fragmentary and any conclusions about the identity of the goddess must be tentative.

The small temple foundations, sacrificial debris of ivory and lead votives are the evidence of cult practice at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia during the Archaic period. Theoretically, we could use similar sites as a basis for comparison, but as noted above, Greek cult practices were diverse and there are no comparable sanctuaries to Artemis on the Greek mainland, in terms of size, votives, or during the same period. At Brauron, a well-known sanctuary of Artemis in Attica, the goddess protected young girls on their path to womanhood. There is no evidence to suggest that the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia functioned in a similar way; instead, according to Herodotus,

Spartan girls were not under the protection of Artemis, as Attic girls were at Brauron, but rather worshipped at a cult dedicated to Helen (Hdt. 6. 61).180 There was another site near the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, which appears to have been dedicated to Eileithyia, a goddess associated with fertility and birth, which may have been popular with young females in the area.181 Rose and

Dawkins determined that because of their proximity that they must have served a similar function.

Thus scholars have often associated the two deities because of the proximity of their sanctuaries, their similar functions of watching over women in childbirth, and Artemis’ later epithet of

Eileithyia.182 However during both Xenophon’s and Pausanias’ time it was the initiatory ordeal, the whipping of youths, which was the popular attraction of the site, as evidenced by a theatre constructed to accommodate spectators of the practice (Xen. Const Lac. 2.9).183 But surely this was not the only ritual to occur at the sanctuary throughout the year.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! choice. There are a number of theories regarding the identification of the goddess, including Hera, Pheobe, and Aphrodite. None however, are strongly supported by the evidence, although Cyrino herself is swayed by an argument that the young girls should be ! linked with the Archaic form of Aphrodite who is described as ‘golden’ – much like the colours associated with dawn in this poem. 179 ! Cole 2004, 179; Farnell 1986, 437. Artemis as a chorus leader see Petrovic 2010, 214. 180 ! Richer 2007, 238. 181 Rose 1929, 402. Rose argues that the close locality of the sites indicate a similarity in function. Waugh 2009, 159-160, responds that the archaeological evidence of the site of a temple to Eileithyia is not sufficient to base such assumptions on. Two terracotta figurines were found which according to Rose represent the goddess of fertility, but Waugh contends that they are merely nude, and that two ! examples do not define the character of one site let alone a nearby site. 182 ! Petrovic 2010, 317; Page 1951, 73; Parker 2011, 69. 183 ! Richer 2007, 238; Larson 2007, 105.

48 Reliance on written texts for explanations or descriptions of cult practice and beliefs is problematic, as the texts did not function as religious texts in antiquity.184 And myths which are re- told by later authors such as Pausanias often serve apologetic functions to describe and rationalise cult practices.185 Furthermore, visiting observers such as Pausanias and even Xenophon to some extent may not have been aware of the full implications of cultic ritual in specific localities. Aside from the description of the ritual practice for the flagellation of boys at Sparta, there is no other description of cult practice at the sanctuary. It is possible that this ritual was the primary function of the sanctuary. However, the mound of sacrificial debris has exposed a variety of votives, implying that a number of different rituals were practiced at the site. The renovation of the site c. 570/560 BCE appears to be evidence of a significant change in the ritual practices and perhaps even the primary deity of the site. While the renovation may have functioned as a repair of damage during the periodic flooding of the basin, the change in votives at the same time implies a more significant reason. For the above reasons, the variety of votive materials, small number of Potnia Theron figurines, and uncertain Archaic ritual practice, we should be wary of labeling the votives as Artemis.

A cult statue would be invaluable in this study, as it would serve to demonstrate how the

Spartans perceived their deity.186 Unfortunately no surviving cult statue for the site of the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia was found. This is unsurprising, as the cult statue was described by

Pausanias as a xoanon: a small wooden statue depicting scarce features.187 The survival of such a statue is unlikely. Even so, the description of the xoanon is helpful. Pausanias relates the story that the statue at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia is the true Tauric cult statue, brought to Sparta by

Orestes (Paus. 3.16.7-11). He supports the Spartan claim that theirs is the true Tauric statue over the Athenian claim that it is their cult statue at Brauron. Even so, Pausanias does not describe the physical attributes, instead just names it a xoanon, a description which makes it clear at least that the cult statue did not resemble any of the female votives, either winged or holding animals:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 184 ! Noegel 2007, 25. 185 ! Noegel 2007, 26. 186 Many xoanon were believed to have been ‘god-given’ supported by stories of how they were found, and their miraculous abilities. In the case of the cult statue of Artemis Orthia, it may have been found bound by willows, tangled in a bush which held it up right. Larson 2007, 105; the wooden statues however may have been carved by artists to appear in that manner. See note 154 above, or ! Donohue 1988 for further analysis of the xoanon in Greek perceptions, the traditional and modern perspectives of xoanon. 187 ! Vernant 1991, 152.

! 49 τὸ δὲ χωρίον τὸ ἐπονοµαζόµενον Λιµναῖον Ὀρθίας ἱερόν ἐστιν Ἀρτέµιδος. τὸ ξόανον δὲ ἐκεῖνο εἶναι λέγουσιν ὅ ποτε καὶ Ὀρέστης καὶ Ἰφιγένεια ἐκ τῆς Ταυρικῆς ἐκκλέπτουσιν: ἐς δὲ τὴν σφετέραν Λακεδαιµόνιοι κοµισθῆναί φασιν Ὀρέστου καὶ ἐνταῦθα βασιλεύοντος.

The place named Limnaeum Marshy is sacred to Artemis Orthia (Upright). The wooden image there

they say is that which once Orestes and Iphigenia stole from the Tauric land, and the

Lacedaemonians say that it was brought to their land because there Orestes was king. (Paus. 3. 16.

7)

This fact, coupled with Pausanias’ apparent surprise at the depiction on the Chest of

Kypselos (Chapter Four discusses this further), should warn those who readily label these figurines as Artemis to be wary.

As has been noted above, the large ash deposit excavated around the Archaic altar at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia exposed a number of the lead figurines and many bone fragments.

The deposit is evidence that the Spartans during the Archaic period burnt animal offerings to the gods. The presence of the lead figurines in the deposit also means that they functioned as votives to the goddess. The question that needs to be addressed here is what the votives depicted, and for what reasons were they dedicated. Were the female votives representative of the deity at the site?

The role of the votives is important as it is not unusual that votive figurines take on the aspect and features of the deity to whom they are offered.188 However, the vast number and variety of votives makes such an analysis of the deity worshipped at the sanctuary of Artemis

Orthia difficult. Many of the lead figurines depict male warriors, some Athena - identified by her aegis – while female figurines holding wreaths and animals make up the majority of lead votives.

The differences in the votives prior to c. 570/560 BCE and after this date indicate that no one deity dominated, and it is likely that the deity may have changed, or different social regulations were established demanding different votives and associated rituals. The full Potnia Theron figure appears only twelve times, from which it may be possible to assume that if it did represent a deity, it was a less common aspect of the deity, or the particular use of those votives was limited.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 188 ! Elsner 2007, 44; Platt 2011, 31; Neer 2012, 110.

50 The use and purpose of the votives will be discussed further in Chapter Four, although it is possible that the Potnia Theron schema depicts an aspect of an early goddess.

The etymology of the name attributed to Orthia is that the cult statue or xoanon was discovered tangled in a bush which held it upright.189 This may be an apologetic myth attributed to the statue in order to better describe her function as it was described in Chapter Two, in the ritual initiation of young men, a practice intended to ensure that Sparta’s young men ‘grow straight’ and proper in their duty to their polis.190 However, there is no epigraphic evidence that the name Orthia existed in the Archiaic period,191 and like the association with Artemis, appears to have occurred primarily in the Hellenistic period. Thus it may be that an early goddess, separate from either Artemis and Orthia, was worshipped at the site yet presented enough similarities for an appropriate syncretism to occur.

The presence of the Potnia Theron image in a variety of contexts across Greece makes it difficult to establish with any certainty whether she represented a deity recognized and worshipped in many areas or whether she was localized. Her presence in many contexts makes it evident that she was recognizable across a large geographic area. As far as I am aware, the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia is the only site where her image is found multiple times on votives dedicated at an altar. Surviving examples of the schema outside Sparta are found predominantly on pottery (which may also have been votive), although the lack of secure provenience for many of these examples can be problematic. The use of the schema on pottery and other media, as separate from a sanctuary context, will be discussed in Chapter Three below. The schema in

Sparta may represent a goddess or aspect worshipped at the sanctuary, but her use on pottery outside Sparta may have had a different function.

The position of the sanctuary in Laconia may be one of the reasons for the site and associated cult to be associated with Artemis. Liminal areas at the edges of a polis, in territorial boundaries, and in uncultivated areas are typical of sanctuaries dedicated to Artemis.192 The sanctuary of Artemis Orthia is in a marshy area, an appropriately liminal area unpopulated by

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 189 ! Larson 2007, 105. 190 ! Richer 2007, 238. 191 Cyrino 2004, 28 192 ! Larson 2007, 106.

! 51 people. Farnell and West argue that Artemis developed from pre-agricultural deities, which explains her protective, productive, and huntress role.193 The Potnia Theron schema could depict one of these ‘pre-agrarian’ deities. Prior to widespread agriculture in Greece, and even during, hunting played an important role in sustaining small-scale societies. It was a risky practice with no guarantee of success or of safety. Sanctuaries on the edges and borders of ‘civilised’ areas may be placed appropriately as the last place to offer sacrifice to a deity of hunting for abundance and safety. Artemis may have taken over liminal sanctuary sites from pre-agrarian deities and such syncretism implies a level of similarity in roles, specifically between the earlier goddess and

Artemis. These similarities and their significance are discussed at length in Chapter Four.

Larson argues that numerous lead votives found at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia after

570/560 BCE, depicting warriors, implies that the deity worshipped at the sanctuary was associated with war.194 She argues that the Potnia Theron schema stays approximately the same in terms of layout, but that the meaning and function changed over time. The lead votives may be evidence that the Potnia Theron schema originally represented a hunting and nature deity, important in hunter-gatherer societies, but with the advent of the Greek poleis the function of the image changed to support victory in battle, an argument supported by Marinatos.195 Yet the distinction between the votives suggests that the aspect represented by the Potnia Theron schema was distinct from the warrior votives; they had different functions, the role of which will be discussed in Chapter Four.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 193 ! Nosch 2009, 23; Farnell 1896, 427. 194 Larson 2007, 102. This is based on the the Spartan practice of sacrificing to Artemis Agrotera before battle. Richer 2007, argues that the sacrifice is appropriate, not because the goddess was involved in the battle, but because those battles would take place in ‘wild’ ! and ‘rustic’ places, sacred to Agrotera, 242. Parker 2011, 91; Cole 2004, 189. 195 Larson 2007, 106. Marinatos 2000, 129.

52 Summary

The sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta functioned as a sacred space from approximately the tenth century BCE and was active well into the Roman period. Literary sources such as Plutarch’s Life of Lycurgus and Pausanias’ Description of Greece describe a sanctuary in the Roman period whose main practice was the rite of scourging young men (Plut. Lyc.18; Paus.

3.16.10-11).196 There is no literary evidence except the much debated Parthenieon that might describe cult practice at an earlier period. The lead and ivory votives suggest a level of wealth and the presence of skilled artisans at the sanctuary. The Potnia Theron schema occurs a number of times within the votives found, among many individual animal figurines, warriors and females holding wreaths. Given the formulaic method of depicting the schema, it is likely that these votives depict an earlier goddess, perhaps Orthia, who was later associated with Artemis. The tripartite structure of the schema does have similarities throughout the Mediterranean, however the Spartan type, as Kopakas argues, shows strong links with the Cretan examples described above in Chapter One. 197

The position of the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia supports the notion that the deity functioned as a goddess dedicated to or involved in the wild or more specifically, in border areas.

The dedications of Potnia Theron images at the site strongly suggest an association with animals in a helpless state, although they do not depict typical game animals, nor do they appear dead.

The birds depicted on two of the votive ivories, sitting on the female’s shoulders are clearly alive, perhaps highlighting a mixed role involving the management of wild animals which may explain why the figure was associated with Artemis, but should not stand as evidence, per se, for the identification of these votives as Artemis.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 196 Waterfield 1998, 4. 197 ! Kopakas 2009, 128.

! 53 CHAPTER THREE:

POTNIA THERON IMAGES LACKING CONTEXT

While the depictions of the Potnia Theron schema at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia provided many examples of the use of the schema in a votive context, we are not so fortunate with many other depictions. There are a number of examples of the schema throughout Greece in the Geometric and Archaic periods, however, their find locations and therefore, context of use is unknown. This chapter analyses depictions of the schema found primarily on vases, but also on plaques, and in metalwork. The focus is on the use of the schema in different materials and its relationship with the media it is portrayed on. Finally, this chapter argues that the depictions discussed below support the notion of a change in the context and meaning of the iconography as evidenced during the late Archaic period at the sanctuary site of Artemis Orthia. These changes resulted in a stronger association with Artemis than is evident during earlier periods.

During the Geometric and early Archaic periods, the Potnia Theron schema was in use across Greece. It was used specifically by Boeotian workshops, and in the Corinthian style.

Additionally, there are two Attic examples from the Amasis Painter, and possibly an Eretrian example.198 Unfortunately, the provenience of a number of the vases is unknown, resulting in their specific contexts being indeterminable. Unlike the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia where the schema functioned specifically in a sanctuary context, and was found primarily on votive objects, this section will analyze the schema on items out of a sanctuary context. While vases can, and often did function as votive objects, given the uncertainty in provenience for many of the examples to be discussed below, the focus of this chapter will be on vases designed to be used in non-votive situations. The intent therefore, is to address the role of the image in the artist’s repertoire and how the image was viewed and consumed.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 198 These examples are not exhaustive; there are other examples of the schema. However, this study cannot cover all examples and must therefore attempt to take a representative sample. Additionally it is likely that the schema was used on a number of missing vases which may have helped expand our knowledge of its use.

54 Function of the schema

Typically the Potnia Theron schema is depicted by itself. On small vases it can be the sole decoration, and on larger vases it often features as the sole decoration in small panels. In rarer cases, such as on the Attic and Eretrian examples, it is the focus of a larger scene. Plaques too show this form of layout, with the schema filling the available space (fig. 6a).199 The female figure is inhibited from participating in action by the flanking animals, perhaps the primary reason for the figure often being depicted alone. This is one of the reasons that the schema may be considered emblematic. It does not participate in scenes but rather presides over certain spaces. However, as figures 4b, 21 and 22 show, the attention of the scene is directed towards the schema, but these appear to be among the minority of examples. The emblematic nature of the schema is important because the way that the schema is utilised can inform our understanding of the role it played in the iconographic repertoire of Greek artists. Additionally, it can illustrate how it was approached and understood by ancient Greek viewers.

The earliest examples of the schema on vases date to the 7th century BCE; contemporary with the ivories and early lead figurines at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia. Birds and felines are the most common animals present in the schema, although deer also appear occasionally. The central female often sports wings according to the style of the era, and she is typically in profile.200

Some scenes can be related to the function of the vase, much like how symposium scenes are common on vases associated with wine: kylikes and kraters. The schema is not limited to any particular shape of vase; in fact it appears on a number of different shapes, from pyxis, arybelloi, and kraters, to amphorae, suggesting that it may not have reflected any particular use. It is possible that the schema was merely decorative, or performed a function viable on different types of vases. In certain areas of a vase, specifically on the neck and handles, the schema is the main decoration (figures 23 and 24). This is primarily due to the space available, but it is also possible

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 199 Cf. Metopes from the temple of Zeus in Olympia depicting the labours of Herakles, The shape of the metopes and in this case, decorative plaques, restrict the types of decoration that can portrayed, single scenes rather than a continuous frieze which can be seen on Ionic Order temples. 200 Korshak discusses the use of the frontal face in Attic vase painting in the Archaic period, citing its rarity and “intrinsic arresting effectiveness.” The frontal face in vase painting is often used to express a diminished control over the self as evidenced by its use depicting satyrs and centaurs, 5-9. It can also be used to express extreme pain or exertion on warriors, 22. Gorgons are also depicted with frontal faces, which Korshak only briefly addresses in her relationship with both the monstrous and as a victim of violence at the hands of Perseus, 20-21. Vernant likens the frontal face of the Gorgo with Artemis in a display of ‘otherness,’ 1991, 11-138. An example of a Rhodian plate depicting a frontal gorgon holding two birds in the Potnia Theron pose may elucidate some of these ! relationships, Boardman 1998, fig. 297.

! 55 that the schema was chosen for some reason to decorate those areas, perhaps as a protective emblem comparable to the Horus stele, a possibility discussed further in Chapter Four.

It is important to note in Boardman’s words, “Pots are for people.”201 They were intended for use in everyday situations and their function can often be overlooked when searching for extraneous meanings.202 Unlike the votives found at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, we can overlook the possible religious contexts that they may have had or functioned as, focussing specifically on their roles as items to be used.

Boeotian Examples

Typically examples of the Potnia Theron schema from Boeotian workshops are different from other Archaic examples in that they do not often hold their flanking animals. In this way, they appear to show a strong similarity in attitude, if not flanking animals, to the Bronze Age schema discussed in Chapter One. Boardman argues that in the 6th century BCE “there was nothing like a

Boeotian League of towns,” thus their vases are stylistically reliant on Attic vases, although they have a tendency to maintain Orientalizing styles.203 For this reason, while they are important for a broader understanding of the schema they will not form a large part of this study, as their relationship to the Archaic Potnia Theron schema is ambiguous and cannot be covered adequately in this thesis.204 Typically, Boeotian Potniai are depicted with birds, much like the votives from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, although they do not often hold the birds (fig. 25).

However, one example of a pyxis depicts the schema holding two birds in a panel (fig. 28), separated from a bridled horse in an adjacent panel. In this way figure 26 is similar to the ivories at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia. It is possible that figure 26 was made for a specific purpose, commission, or was a copy of the more familiar Archaic schema.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 201 Boardman 1998, 263. 202 Boardman 1998, 263. 203 Boardman 1998, 213-214. 204 Boardman notes a ‘backwardness’ and old fashioned style associated with Boeotian vases, they are different in terms of composition 1998, 109-110. Boeotian examples are similar to the Bronze Age images in terms of the interactions with animales. However, the animals depicted are typically birds, much like the votives at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia. This ‘old-fashioned’ style mentioned by Boardman may be a result of a particular method of transference. They either had a different source of inspiration, or this depiction better conveyed important ideas specific to their culture. An analysis of the schema on Boeotian pottery should be the subject of ! further study.

56 Potnia Theron with attendant lions

Lions feature prominently as attendant animals in the Potnia Theron schema, either in pairs or paired with a different animal. This section will introduce a number of examples of the schema with lions with the intent to discuss the role of the lion and possible reasons for these depictions.

An amphora now held at the Mykonos Museum, depicts the Potnia Theron schema on one side of the neck (fig. 23). The vase dates to c. 670-660 BCE.205 The female has wings which curl upwards toward her head. She is in profile, and holds a lion in each hand by their rear legs. The female is wearing a highly decorated skirt, and has decorative ‘antennae’ curling from her head.

The schema fills up the rectangular space, almost as if it was made to fit.

The Francois Vase has a double depiction of the Potnia Theron, one on each handle. In both cases, the schema is used in a stand-alone context. The depiction, this time is on a krater, is relatively small for the size of the vase which stands at 66cm high and dates c. 570 BCE.206 The schemata mirror each other, occupying the outside curve of each handle and both examples stand in a small panel above almost identical Trojan war scenes, of Achilles carrying the body of

Ajax. However, the two schemata are not identical; one of the Potnia Theron figures holds a lion in each hand by their necks. Each lion has one rear paw resting on the ground-line with the other rear paw raised. Their front paws are raised, and show a certain amount of tension; they do not appear to be dead. The opposing Potnia Theron holds a panther in her right hand and a stag in her left (fig. 24). Similarly she holds both by their necks, helpless. The vase as a whole is primarily filled with figures and scenes related to a mythical framework, the Hunt for the Calydonian Boar, and the Wedding of Peleus and Thetis, to name but a few. Why is it that the Potnia Theron schema is the only feature on this vase which doesn’t have a narrative background? The double depiction of the same schema on the vase could imply that it functioned as a space filler, a static observer and emblematic feature. However, if we consider the Potniai as space fillers, so too should we interpret the Trojan War scenes beneath them.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 205 ! LIMC Artemis 22. 206 ! Pedley 2012, 193, fig. 6.75-6.76.

! 57 In contrast to functioning as space fillers, two amphorae by the Amasis Painter, dated to c.

575-500 BCE, depict the Potnia Theron schema on the main scene.207 Figure 22, from Orvieto displays a winged female in profile holding a lion by its rear leg in her right hand and a doe by its neck in her left. The schema is flanked by a pair of young men holding spears, who in turn are flanked by a pair of robed characters. The other amphora, also from Orvieto displays the schema on both sides of the vase, again flanked by youths with spears. Both schemata on this vase hold lions, and stand beneath a neck panel decorated with athletes wrestling.

Another Amasis Painter vase, a black figure lekythos (fig. 21), also depicts the Potnia

Theron figure in profile, but with her head turned to the left while her feet point right. In this depiction she holds a pair of lions by their rear legs. The whole schema is flanked by two draped figures holding spears. The opposition of her head to her feet could indicate movement, that she was walking, yet looking over her shoulder. Or just as likely, it functioned as a method for uniting the scene.

The association of the schema with spear-bearing men introduces an element not yet encountered with the Potnia Theron figure. The Amasis Painter vases date to the Late Archaic

Attic style, and the decoration could be comparable to the association between Artemis Orthia and youths at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia. Marinatos likens the schema to subjugation,208 evidenced by its supposed violent connotations, a problematic concept this thesis addressed in

Chapter One. She associates the schema with young men as warriors primarily using the later evidence of the scourging rite, and a connection of the schema to Artemis Orthia, and the bloodthirsty xoanon.209 However, aside from the spears in these scenes, no other armaments are portrayed, nor does the scene convey explicit violence. The spears could identify the young men as potential warriors, and perhaps is reflective of the pre-battle sacrifice practiced by the

Lacedaemonians and described by Xenophon:

! !

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 207 BAD 350471; BAD 310441. 208 Marinatos 2000, 93-117. 209 Marinatos argues that the dominance expressed in the Archaic images links the image closer to Syrian and Near Eastern deities, and does not have a Bronze Age Aegean background. She argues that the Archaic image is not nurturing and thus serves the needs of the ! warriors of the polis. 2000, 93, 117. However, the lack of a nurturing iconography does not readily associate the image with warriors.

58 οὐκέτι δὲ στάδιον ἀπεχόντων, σφαγιασάµενοι οἱ Λακεδαιµόνιοι τῇ Ἀγροτέρᾳ, ὥσπερ νοµίζεται, τὴν χίµαιραν, ἡγοῦντο ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐναντίους, τὸ ὑπερέχον ἐπικάµψαντες εἰς κύκλωσιν.

And when they [the armies] were no further apart than a stadium, the Lacedaemonians sacrificed a

goat to Agrotera as was their custom, and led the charge towards their enemies, advancing the

wings, surrounding them.

However, if the schema was depicting a well-known practice, surely the female figure should be portrayed holding a goat. Only a few examples of the schema depict a goat making it unlikely that depicting this practice was their main function (fig. 27).210 Therefore the scenes portrayed on the Amasis Painter vases do not appear to reflect this Lacedaemonian custom.

The Amasis Painter vases are among the minority which depict the schema alongside other figures, perhaps representing an artist experimenting with the schema and its positioning rather than expressing mythic narrative. The dates attributed to the vases may also support this interpretation; the earliest that the vases could be dated to, c. 575 BCE, and the period directly after, may have corresponded with the changes occurring at the sanctuary site of Artemis Orthia, reflecting a widespread and changing attitude towards the schema in terms of how it was used and what it represented.

The schema is also present on jewelry or personal decoration. Seven gold plaques from a grave in Rhodes depict the schema (fig. 4c). The plaques from c. 660-620 BCE, depict the schema, a female with two lions, almost identically seven times.211 The only exceptions appear to be variations in the granulation and decoration on the females’ garments. This piece was excavated from the Kamiros tomb providing a context for this example; although evidence of ancient wear shows that this piece was used in life.212 The rich materials imply that it was owned or made for a wealthy citizen. The depiction of the lions may also support this notion, as discussed below. The use of the plaques as decoration is important because not only would they display wealth and power through the materials and the schema, but if we accept that the schema had

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 210 In contrast, Barclay 2001, 375, notes that among Mesopotamian examples of female deties in the Mistress of Animals pose, goats are the most common animals depicted. This main difference in animals may indicate more clearly that the images represented different ideas. 211“The British Museum” 1861,1111.3 http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=462592&partId=1&searchText=mis tress+of+animals&page=1 212 “The British Museum” 1861,1111.3

! 59 another function, possibly protective (as discussed in Chapter One), the depiction becomes even more interesting in terms of how it was used and consumed in the Archaic period.

It is important to note the continued use of the lion in the Archaic schema, possibly as a remnant of the Bronze Age schema where lions and griffins were common attendants, and the possible meanings of the lion which will be discussed below. One of the only links between

Artemis and lions is a description found in the Iliad only thirteen lines from the Potnia Theron reference discussed above. Hera refers to Artemis as a ‘lion to women.’

ἐπεὶ σὲ λέοντα γυναιξὶ Ζεὺς θῆκεν (Hom. Il. 483)

… when Zeus made you a lion to women…

The reference was in regard to her ability to take the lives of women in childbirth. The lion epithet may refer to Artemis’ power, possibly represented by the lion in the Potnia Theron schema. The lion, as discussed in Chapter One, represents power, which made it a fitting attendant for the Bronze Age scheme. The lion may still represent power, but instead of supporting the female figure, in the Archaic schema the female is either harnessing that power, or proving herself even more powerful.213 Such concepts may prove that the schema was an apt model into which Artemis later fitted.

Potnia Theron with attendant birds.

The popularity of birds in the Potnia Theron schema seen on the Orthia ivories is comparable to depictions of the schema on pottery. This section will analyze their use on two small vases.

Figure 28 is a small aryballos, c. 580-575 BCE decorated with a winged female in profile, facing right, holding a swan in each hand. She holds them by the neck, but like the lions on the

François Vase, they stand on the ground line, appearing more helpless than dead. Because of the small size of the vase, the schema takes up the majority of available area. The female is wearing an odd garment in which one of her legs is exposed, in much the same fashion as the running !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 213 A similar concept may be seen in Mesopotamian images of the Hero, who holds animals in a similar manner expressing his dominance. Barclay 2001, 373, 380. This same dominance may be seen in the Archaic images although in Mesopotamian art, the Hero is not a deity as the female here appears to be.

60 gorgons on the Eleusis amphora.214 A similar Potnia Theron, again depicted with swans, can be found on a Corinthian alabastron (fig. 29).215

A Rhodian plate from the 6th century displays the schema, holding two birds, but with the frontal face of the Gorgon (fig. 30). Boardman notes that the Eastern Greeks did not often use their pottery to display narratives, thus implying that even with the Gorgon head, the schema remains emblematic.216 The Gorgon is sometimes identified with Artemis through their shared strangeness.217 This plate is important because it may highlight one possible reason for the association of the two figures. However, the relationship between Artemis and the Gorgon is too large to deal with in this study.

Both of the Corinthian examples are on vases which were likely used in personal settings.218 On both vases, the Potnia Theron schema is the main decoration, with floral filling motifs surrounding the figures. These images are comparable to the ivory votives at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, differing only in respect to the material used and the specific types of bird depicted. However, their role is uncertain because of their unknown context. They may have functioned in a votive role, although just as likely, they were used in everyday life.

Summary

Based on the examples discussed above, the female figure has a similar relationship with the animals irrespective of the type of animals held.219 Aside from the Boeotian examples, the shcema is relatively uniform. The common animals held by the female figure are lions and birds.

The association of these figures with Artemis is therefore problematic. The only association that the mythical Artemis has with lions is her epithet given to her by Hera (Hom. Il. 21.483), and perhaps it is this reference that the images reflect. But it is more likely that the lions do not reflect anything corporeal but instead represent the ideas of strength and power. However, this poses another problem in the interpretation of the birds depicted. The mythical Artemis does not have !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 214 C.f. Eleusis amphora Pedley 2012, fig. 5.8. 215 Another example of the schema holding birds in a larger context may be seen on a possible Eretrian vase where a Potnia Theron figure appears to be part of a procession. Boardman 1998, fig. 465. 1, 2. 216 Boardman 1998, 150. 217 Vernant has a number of essays on this topic, although they are essentialised in the 1991 publication, see specifically Chapters Five and Six. 218 Boardman 1974, 189-190. 219 ! Other examples of the Potnia Theron schema can be found in LIMC, Artemis 21, 22, 34, 35, 36, 37, 47, 50, 51.

! 61 strong associations with birds (if any) indicating that the birds might represent something different; they are not easily associated with representations of power. Importantly, both depictions are only problematic assuming that the schema represents Artemis. It is important to note Boardman’s words above, “Pots are for people.” Real people used these vases and plaques, consuming the image and its associated ideas. The lack of the schema after the Late Archaic period implies that, like the sanctuary site of Artemis Orthia, an important change occurred in which this schema was no longer appropriate.

! !

62 CHAPTER FOUR:

ARTEMIS MEETS POTNIA THERON: ASSOCIATIONS IN THE

ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL PERIODS

Artemis was by far one of the most characteristically complex deities to inhabit the Greek world. This chapter discusses the complex role Artemis played in Greek society and the role that the Potnia Theron schema appears to have played in their later association. Such a discussion is important to the study of Greek iconography and belief systems because scholarship has tended to accept Artemis as the sole identity of the Potnia Theron schema.220 However, it is important to consider the origin of the schema and the role that it played prior to its association with Artemis in order to understand its significance in Greek society. It is likely that the schema originally belonged to another early goddess, or a Geometric and Early Archaic concept that was no longer considered important or conveyed differently by the Classical period. I contend that the schema was a framework into which Artemis was later placed as part of an evolving iconography and the development and diffusion of popular gods in contemporary Greece.

This section will first address the role of Artemis, as far it is understood today, in the

Archaic and Classical periods. Following this I will address why the images are associated with

Artemis, concluding with a discussion on the use of the depictions of the Potnia Theron schema. I will place specific emphasis on the use of votives from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia and possible interpretations of the use of the schema when not in specific archaeological contexts as described in Chapters Two and Three. Through such an analysis of Artemis’ role, and the use of the votives and vases discussed above, I will illustrate how the schema, while later associated with

Artemis, did not originally depict the goddess Artemis.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 220 E.g. Kahil 1984, Artemis; Vernant 1991, 196; Marinatos 2000, 93-97. While this is a controversial topic, it is an important discussion to have in order to determine the role of the schema in later periods, and to see whether that role was also being fulfilled in earlier periods.

! 63 The Role of Artemis

“She is the Huntress, the Wild One, the Archer who shoots wild animals with her weapons, and whose arrows, when used among humans, sometimes strike women unexpectedly to bring them sudden death. She is also the Maiden, the pure Parthenos….”221 So wrote Vernant in his 1991 analysis of Greek religion and the role of Artemis. She is also a koutrophos,222 a cruel mistress, and protector of animals.223 The broad scope of these different and often conflicting roles has been attributed to local variations, which are explicit in her epithets, Artemis Lochia,

Laphria, Knakeatis, Limnatis, Elaphebolia, and Eileithyia to name but a few.224 Dowden defines

Greek gods as existing in “intersecting dimensions which create the illusion of a single personality… their identities distinguished by their epithets.”225 While she may have existed in various forms, it is unclear when the local deities became associated with Artemis. In fact, Parker comments that the “Greeks often did not know whether a figure such as Eileithyia was a minor independent goddess or an aspect of a greater power.”226 From the outside it is possible to see that local deities may have shared functions, or ‘essentials’ but is it appropriate to attribute a

“greater power” onto beliefs that the Greeks may have had about their own individual gods?

Such an assumption if taken too far could result in the similar misapprehension of early scholars with the assumption that all female deities were aspects of a single ‘mother goddess.’ It is for this reason, among others to be discussed below, that I consider the early Archaic schema was not yet part of the greater Artemis umbrella.

There is essentially one main method by which to approach the disparate goddess

Artemis: Vernants’ method of working backwards takes her accumulated functions from a later period and attempts to synthesize her “essentials,” those things which unify her various roles.227

This method addresses why disparate functions and various local, and early deities with specific roles were gathered under one final umbrella deity. Vernant looks to the essentials of Artemis as !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 221 Vernant 1991, 196. 222 Nielsen, 2009, 84. A koutrophos was primarily concerned with the development of children. At the sanctuary of Artemis in Brauron she was specifically associated with birth. The garments of women in childbirth were dedicated at the site; Nielsen also notes that these roles alongside a fertility role could possibly indicate pre-Greek and Near Eastern roots, and that Artemis’ function related to hunting could be identified with the Potnia Theron figure. Larson 2007, 107. 223 Larson 2007, 101. See also Paus. 7. 19. 2-5 for a recount of human sacrifice demanded by Artemis Triclaria as a punishment for a couple making her sanctuary their marriage chamber; Burkert 1985, 152. 224 Bevan 1987, 17; Larson 2001, 101-113; Vernant 1991, 196-197. 225 Dowden 2007, 41-42. 226 Parker, 2011, 97. 227 Vernant 1991, 196.

64 an established deity in the Olympian twelve. Larson acknowledges that the Archaic Artemis was a composite figure, with influence from the Near East, local goddesses concerned with rites of passage, and the ancient Mistress of Animals.228 The Mistress of Animals could be linked with pre- agrarian societies who heavily relied on a deity believed to regulate food in the wild.229 It is therefore important to note the likelihood that the schema represented different deities or ideas prior to its associations with Artemis.

Aside from her associations with the wild, Artemis is also linked through a number of her epithets with fertility.230 While virginal herself, her relationship with liminal states makes her various aspects ideal to preside over important stages in a woman’s life such as marriage and birth.231 Her function was not to ensure fertility but instead to help an individual pass onto the next stage of their life; to ensure that they fulfilled their assigned role in society. However, this role is not evident at the Archaic sanctuary of Artemis Orthia. While Dawkins and Rose associated the sanctuary with the nearby one of Eiliethyia, there is no archaeological evidence that the two were linked in the Archaic levels at the site.232 Additionally, a fertility function is not expressed in the

Potnia Theron pose; neither the female nor the animals are depicted with young or pregnant.

Thus this is not an aspect that should necessarily be associated with the figure.

Vernant analyzed the collective and disparate functions of Artemis and concluded that the essential element was her liminal role.233 Parker expanded on this in his book On Greek Religion and concluded that “One role of Artemis was precisely, it can be argued, to give this fuzzy awareness [the passage between savagery and civility] a shape and a name.”234 From such an analysis it is easy to see how the Potnia Theron schema might fit into this role. The animals are wild, yet in the hands of the female they are not dead, merely helpless; the civilized female and the wild animals provide a contrast which fits almost perfectly into the later construct of Artemis as a deity. Therefore, the multiple functions of Artemis created the circumstances for her association with the earlier, ambiguous Potnia Theron figure.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 228 Larson 2007, 101. 229 Larson 2007, 101; Nosch 2009, 23. 230 Petrovic 2010, 317. 231 In Attica her aspects which presided over childbirth were Locheia and Eileithyia, initiation, Brauron, Munychia, and Tauropolos. She also functioned as a koutrotrophos concerned with child-rearing. Petrovic 2010, 317. 232 Waugh 2009, 158-160. 233 Vernant 1991, 199. 234 Parker 2011, 91.

! 65 The association of the Potnia Theron schema with the construct of the goddess Artemis appears apologetic. The modern scholar often attempts to discuss a ‘Greek Religion’ while simultaneously accepting that such a term is anachronistic. The Greek states were not unified; they did not have an overarching set of religious practices, or necessarily a concept of religion separate from everyday life. Even Vernant’s analysis of Artemis’ role serves an apologetic function, attempting to find order and theoretical similarities in various aspects to rationalize their later associations. While this is the best method available to scholars at present, it should be clear that such assumptions are problematic. The association of Artemis with the Potnia Theron schema is not clear in the Archaic iconography, nor in epigraphic material. Marinatos and Kahil argue that the Potnia Theron figure was eventually blended into the cult of Artemis, resulting in later images of Artemis holding a small lion in one hand and her bow in the other.235 “By the late Archaic and early Classical period the Mistress of Animals is assimilated into the huntress.”236 Yet, while a later assimilation is evident, this cannot be taken as evidence of any prior association with Artemis.

Why is the schema attributed to Artemis? Pausanias and the Chest of Kypselos

As discussed, the Potnia Theron schema is typically attributed to Artemis, the Greek goddess of the wild and the hunt, primarily due to the presence of the animals. This attribution is supported by a description of a figure from Pausanias in his Periegesis on the Archaic Chest of

Kypselos. However, one of the main problems with identifying the figure as Artemis is the lack of named or labeled figures. Writing in the Archaic period gained popularity with inscriptions on vases and statues identifying the makers, the subject, or even a note on the attractiveness of a young man (kalos inscription); but overall it remained rare. Pausanias in many ways has both helped and hindered the identification of the Potnia figure. In his Periegesis, he names the Potnia

Theron figure as Artemis in a description of the Chest of Kypselos.237

To put Pausanias’ description into context, he is describing a cedar chest at the sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia. He notes that the chest is decorated with both ivory and gold, and the wood itself has also been carved. Significantly, he mentions that most of the figures on the chest are named, yet also notes that many of the inscriptions are difficult to decipher (Paus. 5. 17. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 235 Marinatos 2000, 97; Kahil 1984, 743-744, 738. 236 Marinatos 2000, 97. 237 The Greek and an English translation can be found on page 44 of this thesis.

66 6).238 From his descriptions, of not only the Potnia Theron schema, but also centaurs with two human legs and two horse legs it is apparent that the chest is decorated in an authentic Archaic manner (Paus. 5. 19. 5- 7). While the description of the chest is the “second longest descriptive excursus” in the work,239 unfortunately his description of ‘Artemis’ is only two lines long. This is problematic because it is unclear whether the schema was inscribed and identified as Artemis. If it was, then it would be the first and only example of such early identification. However, in prior descriptions of the decoration Pausanias clearly states when the figures are named by inscription, and often provides the inscription as evidence. Sometimes however, especially when describing the war scenes on the chest, Pausanias freely offers the two different interpretations of his guides, and infers his own meaning (Paus. 5. 18. 8). In much the same way, Anthony Snodgrass notes the predisposition of Pausanias to attribute Homeric inspiration to un-inscribed scenes.240

Unfortunately, Pausanias does not state whether an inscription accompanied this schema.

The brief description that Pausanias provides for the figure, the gripped animals in either hand, adheres to the tripartite structure of the Potnia Theron schema, and the figure tends to hold feline animals and water birds more so than others. Pausanias identifies the captive animals of the female as a leopard and a lion, however the comment that he does not know why Artemis is depicted with wings is telling; the Artemis with whom Pausanias is familiar does not have wings and he is probably more familiar with her sculptural form. The fact remains that he is confident in his identification of the figure as Artemis. The question that I ask is whether the presence of wild animals was enough to identify the figure or did he recognize the schema? Given the lack of reliable Archaic literary sources, it is possible that the Potnia Theron figure was a specific form recognizable as Artemis not explored in the extant literary tradition. This is evidenced in some part by Pausanias's description.241 While art is a rich source of myth, as discussed above, the

Potnia Theron schema does not invite a narrative interpretation and thus is unlikely to be associated with any particular myth.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 238 Snodgrass 2001, 129. 239 Snodgrass 2001, 128. 240 Snodgrass 2001, 133-134. 241 However, we must be aware that Pausanias tended to focus on the architectural remains of the Hellenic world, only sometimes delving into descriptions of the mythic or cultivate background of various sites. Pirenne-Delforge 2010, 375-376. Pausanias also tended ! to interact with sculpture on a more regular basis that pottery where the winged Artemis is more common.

! 67 Pausanias questions the wings portrayed on the figure, which shows that he was not familiar with Archaic painting or relief. We can only safely assume one of two things from this passage; that he had been told that the figure was Artemis by his guides; or that he recognized the figure as Artemis based on the attributes of the wild animals. However, he previously noted when the guides told him something, in the same way he noted when there were specific inscriptions on the chest. It is possible that he was not consistent in providing this information, although given other examples of the Potnia Theron schema seen in this study, (fig. 4 and fig. 6) it is more than likely that the figure stood alone in a panel, un-named (fig. 31).

Due to the relatively reliable accounts that Pausanias provides in other circumstances, it is possible to assume that his identification of the figure as Artemis is correct. However, as an authentic Archaic piece, the Chest of Kypselos was already over seven centuries old by the time

Pausanias viewed it.242 Additionally, the understanding of Greek deities from the perspective of a

2nd century CE scholar may have been very different to how they were understood in the Archaic period. Indeed, Pausanias would be informed about Artemis as a deity in her role as a goddess of the wild and of the hunt, particularly her role in the Homeric epics and her depictions in Classical sculpture. It is uncertain as to whether he may have been aware of any different goddess or concept conveyed in the pose due to his relative distance from the Archaic period. In the absence of any explicit inscription, it appears that the presence of wild animals provided an acceptable identification of the figure as Artemis in the Roman Period. However, the interpretation of the schema remains reliant on Pausanias’ explanation, which Snodgrass claims may even have been one of his first confrontations with an early-mid Archaic piece of art.243 Therefore, we may consider the schema un-named by any extant inscription, or explicitly offered in Pausanias’ Periegesis; and his interpretation is an attempt to qualify an image which he is not familiar with.

Artemis’ Favourite Animals

Artemis, the mythical entity, is specifically associated with her favourite animals, only one of which appears in the Potnia Theron schema. Discrepancies between mythical, religious, and artistic representations are common and are the root cause of much confusion in ancient studies.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 242 Snodgrass 2001, 128. 243 Snodgrass 2001, 135.

68 If the Potnia Theron schema was intended to depict the goddess Artemis, the figure presents a discrepancy between the animals presented and the mythical relationships that the goddess had with particular creatures. The animals which are associated with Artemis in myth are the deer, the bear, both of whom she defends, and the boar, whom she unleashes as a punishment on Kalydon

(Il. 9. 533).244 Of these three, only the stag is occasionally present in the Archaic Potnia Theron schema. Despite Artemis’ ample presence in Greek myth and her associations with nature and wild things, only these three animals play active mythical roles and are clearly identified with the goddess. Artemis’ clear mythical association with these animals lends support to her role as a goddess of multiple animals, and thus the wild. This may be the aspect which is being expressed in the Archaic Potnia Theron schema. However, as only the stag is ever present in the schema, it seems evident that the portrayal of particular animals might represent something more significant.

These three animals are all present throughout Greek art. Boars appear in vase paintings, primarily in depictions of the famous Calydonian Boar Hunt (fig. 32), alongside Atlanta who also has strong links with Artemis.245 Both myth and art detail the death or killing of the boar, making it a perfect candidate to be held helpless in the grasp of an Archaic Potnia Theron (Hom. Il. 9.538-

580). However there is no such depiction of a boar in the Potnia Theron schema, although it is possible that the physical attributes of the boar did not lend itself to such a depiction. The stag is protected in myth and in Classical vase painting, either fed by the goddess or hunted (fig. 33).

The bear, in contrast, has a confused and often conflicting mythical role, being both protected and killed.246 The stag is occasionally shown helpless in the hands of the Archaic Potnia Theron, yet the bear like the boar has no place in the schema. The choice to depict the stag and not the other animals associated with Artemis may reflect issues not related to extant myths, rather possible functions. Equally, however, it may also indicate that the Archaic Potnia Theron did not originally represent the goddess Artemis.

The popularity of felines and birds in the Archaic Potnia Theron schema may reflect different concerns. Their associations with the wild are clear; neither felines nor birds were domesticated. However the question to be addressed is whether the animals simply represented

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 244 ! Gantz 1993, 97; Farnell 1896, 433. 245 ! Farnell 1896, 443. 246 ! Calame 2010, 257; Farnell 1896, 435-438

! 69 the wild, or had other symbolic roles. That they are symbolic of the wild is assumed in the interpretation of schema as Artemis, although given the Greek perception of seeing deities as both natural phenomena and personalities,247 it is possible that she does not represent the mythic

Artemis but instead the personification of the wild. In a more complex approach, it is possible that the representation of different animals might embody particular concerns of the Archaic Greeks, the meaning of which may be determined through an analysis of the role and function of the images as they were used.

The Cults of Artemis

Artemis appears to have been the chief deity at two main cult sites, at Brauron in Attica and the aforementioned sanctuary of Artemis Orthia. While she did have numerous other sanctuaries, both Brauron and Orthia were particularly popular in the Classical period. At both sites she appears to have functioned as an observer, protector and facilitator of rites of passage, a liminal period in the life of a child. The evidence for rituals at Brauron is vague and even at Orthia it is unclear except for some writings from later authors. Pausanias claims that the cult statue of

Artemis at Orthia was the same as the one brought from Tauris by Orestes and Iphigenia (Eurip.

IT. 1440-1441), his evidence being the ability of the xoanon to become heavier or lighter during the practice where young boys were lashed or whipped in order to stain the altar with human blood (Paus. 3. 15. 6-11).

By the Roman period at Orthia, the practice of flagellation had grown to become a spectacle large enough that a stadium was built to accommodate a tourist audience.248 Scholars have come to see this whipping as a part of the Spartan rite of passage into manhood, which would fit into anthropological theories of what a rite of passage should consist of. That is the endurance of a challenge, often in the form of pain and a sense of camaraderie with specific age groups.249 Plutarch mentions in his Life of Lycurgus that a large number of Lacedaemonian youths die under the lash at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia (Plut. Lyc. 18).250 However, cult practice during Plutarch’s time is not evidence for practice during the Archaic period, nor is it as Robin

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 247 Naiden 2013b, 391. 248 Dawkins 1929, 3 249 Van Gennep 1960, 67-68. 250 Waterfield 1998, 27.

70 Waterfield states, a “representative of a tradition continuously preserved, but a revival created in a later period.”251 The sand layer at the sanctuary and the change in votives is possible evidence for a break in the continuity of cult practice.252 Thus, late evidence for the cult of Artemis Orthia should not bear much weight on possible cult practices or the character of the local deity prior to

560 BCE.

At the sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron it is possible that the young girls had to ‘play the bear,’ which according to varying sources could either mean they had to represent both the maternal and the aggressive aspects of bears; or that they were the subject of a played-out sacrifice.253 In both examples of cults to Artemis, evidence of cult practice is both scarce and later in date than that being discussed in this thesis. While the late date does not have any bearing on interpretations around the character of Artemis as a goddess, it does mean that it cannot be used to definitively assess her character in the Archaic period.

Artemis had a number of other sanctuary sites throughout both the Peloponnesus and

Attica. Susan Cole assesses sanctuaries and their use in her book Landscapes, Gender, and Ritual

Space: The Ancient Greek Experience, with a comprehensive analysis of sites dedicated to

Artemis.254 Through her analysis she finds that early sites associated with Artemis are in remote areas, in mountains and forests, but notes that these sites are not random.255 Using a similar method to Vernant, Cole looks for common elements in the sacred sites, determining that “the defining feature was not so much in the location but in the character of the space they occupied.”256 Cole concludes that the common character of sites sacred to Artemis is their sensitivity; they are areas of “dangerous or threatened passage,” located at the entrances and borders of specific Poleis.257 Nicholas Richer notes the important Lacedaemonian sanctuaries as

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 251 Waterfield 1998, 4. 252 Thompson 1909; Boardman 1963, 1-7; Wace 1929, 282; Larson 2007, 106. 253 See Calame 2010, for a discussion on gendered rites of passage with a specific focus on Brauron and the conflicting and disputed evidence. 254 Cole 2004. 255 Cole 2004, 184. 256 Cole 2004, 183. Cole is not the only scholar to discuss the marginal areas which sanctuaries to Artemis were located. However, in a similar manner to Vernant, she has synthesized vast amounts of material about the sanctuaries making her analysis a useful tool for this thesis. 257 Cole 2004, 184-185. In these delicate positions, Artemis may have functioned to protect areas, acknowledged as vulnerable, governed and chosen by developing poleis. Any crime performed in the area by neighbouring poleis could be used as a justification for retribution (the rape of parthenoi at the sanctuary of Artemis Limnatis on Mt. Taygetos was used as a justification of the Messenian Wars in the 4th century BCE), 180. Furthermore, the safety of parthenoi during cult practices at these sanctuaries was evidence of political stability.

! 71 shown by figure 34; four of the possible sites of sanctuaries to Artemis lie at the edges of the polis area.258 A high proportion of Artemis’ epithets are formed from toponyms indicating that she was bound to particular localities.259 The number of epithets may also indicate that she subsumed many local deities who previously held sway in those areas.

Artemis was a paradoxical goddess with many different functions. The unity between her disparate functions was the dangerous and liminal aspects of her roles. The Potnia Theron figure could exemplify this unity: the paradox of a female handling wild animals who in normal circumstances would have, in the case of birds, flown away, and lions, be considered very dangerous. It is possible that the schema was originally intended to depict these aspects of

Artemis. Yet it is likely that she did not pick up or have these aspects until after she became associated with many different local deities, during the Late Archaic period.

Comparison of the Role of Artemis with the Potnia Theron schema

The relatively large quantity of Potnia Theron images found at the sanctuary of Orthia is indicative of the importance of the schema in this particular location at a relatively early period.

The number of examples of the schema found at the site has been particularly influential on scholarship about Artemis and her sanctuaries.260 However, in contrast to other votives at the site, the number of Potnia Theron schemata was relatively insignificant. Additionally, the problem with using the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia as irrevocable evidence that the Potnia Theron schema represented Artemis is the assumption that the site was sacred to Artemis from an early period and did not suffer many changes. Sacred sites do tend to be continuous, yet deities worshipped and rituals practiced often are not. These changes are often dictated by dominant religions, ethnic groups or political parties. The question pertinent to this thesis is whether the sanctuary of

Artemis Orthia displays any evidence for a break in continuity indicating a possible change in the goddess worshipped. Despite a lack of inscriptions naming the goddess during the Archaic period it is possible that the sanctuary was sacred to one goddess continuously, or equally likely, an indigenous goddess represented by the Potnia Theron schema, was adapted to fit the worship

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 258 Richer 2007, 245. 259 Cole 2004, 30, 191-192. 260 ! E. g. Larson 2007, 105; Fischer-Hansen and Paulsen 2009, 11; Bevan 1987, 77-78.

72 of Artemis Orthia. Finally, it is possible that the schema did not represent a deity but was rather a personification of a concept, a votive fashioned for a particular purpose.

The role of a votive was intended to establish a reciprocal relationship with specific gods, in the hope that they might be rendered benevolent in certain circumstances.261 Votives are distinguished by their context. They are items found at sanctuary sites: vases, plaques, inscriptions, and figurines, offered to a deity. Richard Neer states that “… an image of the deity was always an appropriate votive…”262 This understanding may help to determine whether the schema was originally intended to represent a deity at the site. Alongside the winged lead votives, some of which hold wreaths, the schema was one of the most prominent and consistent forms at the site prior to the sand layer c. 570-560 BCE. After the sand layer however, no examples of the schema have been found, and the majority of the lead figurines appear to depict

Athena in her Aegis, warriors, and possible Poseidon-types with tridents. The distinct change in the types of votives offered at the site indicates that a change occurred.263 If Neer is correct in his statement that an image of the god was an appropriate votive, then the absence of the schema after the sand layer indicates that the god too may have been absent.

Kopanias argues that the ivory votives at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia were crafted on site,264 as were the lead votives.265 In so far as they are the only extant examples from a clear sanctuary context, it is possible that they functioned as votives for a specific purpose localized at this site. While vases can also function in a votive context, many have unclear proveniences and only occasionally do they solely depict the schema. It is important to note that different types of ritual can determine the types of votives used.266 Additionally, votives are symbolic; their value is not necessarily established through material means but rather their symbolic worth.267

The lead votives were originally described during the excavations as cheap votive offerings,268 yet a 2001 study of the lead being used has shown that the lead was imported.269

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 261 Gina Salapata ASCS 2014; Naiden 2013a, 9; Platt 2011, 31. 262 Neer 2012, 110. 263 Wace 1929, 282. 264 Kopanias 2009, 129-130. Kopanias argue that the artists were trained in an Oriental workshop or style but that they were functioning autonomously at the sanctuary in the Archaic period and creating different styles. 265 Wace 1929, 250. 266 Gina Salapata ASCS 2014. 267 Gina Salapata ASCS 2014. 268 Wace 1929, 270; Pinney, 1925, 157.

! 73 According to a recent study by David Gill and Michael Vickers, lead is not geographically present in Laconia and after isotope analyses of the lead finds at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia it was determined that the lead had originated in the Laurion silver beds.270 This is important because although votives may have more symbolic meaning than material worth, the importation of lead from Attica would increase the material value applied to the lead in earlier studies. Furthermore, the importation of lead used to fashion votives implies that these lead figurines had a specific purpose, a purpose reliant on the figurine crafted from lead. Lead votives have been found primarily at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, and also at a number of other Laconian sites, albeit in smaller numbers.271

The exact nature of the rituals involved is impossible to determine. Yet, some details can be demonstrated. It is possible that the different votive depictions, the Potnia Theron, winged goddesses, animals, and females, correspond to different rituals. The small size of the figurines may have facilitated rituals involving mass dedications, evidenced by the large numbers of lead figurines excavated.272 Mass dedications could imply that they were part of an event which happened rarely, perhaps once a year, an event which involved a large proportion of the community. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine the nature of the ritual involved from the evidence, although such an investigation should be included in any further studies about Spartan religion.

The role of the Potnia Theron schema on vases and other media outside sanctuary contexts is difficult to interpret. The lack of context prevents any logical conclusions based on use with the only concrete deduction being that it functioned decoratively. However, it is possible that it had a different function. A comparison with the Horus stelae as discussed in Chapter One is not necessarily appropriate, with the different gender of the central figure and the added complication of comparing Egyptian religious iconography with Archaic Greek iconography. Yet, the Horus stelae may function in this analysis to illustrate how an image in conjunction with a spell !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 269 Gill and Vickers 2001, Isotopic analyses of the lead figurines from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia has proven that the lead was derived from the silver Laurion beds in Attica. This is important not only because it is evidence that silve was being mined at an earlier date than previously believed, but it was also being exported, indicating a higher level of interaction between Greek poleis during the early Archaic period, 235. 270 Gill and Vickers 2001, 229, 235. 271 Gill and Vickers 2001, 229. 272 It is possible that the small size of the leads is evidence that lead was hard to access, however, in the Lead III-IV phase when the size decreased, the numbers of individual votives increased by a multiple of four. Additionally, the sheer numbers imply that lead was accessible if not necessarily cheap.

74 gives it a well-attested and recognized meaning. This is important because it means that the same

Horus image could be recognized to function in the same manner if the spell was not visibly preserved. In the same way, the Potnia Theron schema may have had a function recognized by the people who used the vases, wore the jewelry, and offered votives depicting the schema. We may just be missing the ‘spell’ as it were, describing its use.

Artemis, much like Dionysus, is a paradoxical goddess; both a maiden, yet one who also presides over birth. She has been described, even by ancient authors, as a ‘stranger’ – in a similar manner to Dionysus.273 But like Dionysus, the term 'stranger' more likely refers to her strange cult practices and her variable nature.274 The paradox also stems from her mix of depictions; the depictions that we are discussing here.

Summary

During the Archaic period, Artemis was shown in a number of other myth related scenes such as those from the Siphnian Treasury and on the Francios Vase. The emblematic Potnia

Theron schemata are typically isolated due to the material they are depicted on, or due to their positioning. In the Archaic Potnia Theron pose, the figure holds the animals, a pose which has previously been interpreted to show Artemis’ dominance over the wild. However, if we accept that the break and change in votive material at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia signifies a change in concepts or deities, the Potnia Theron schema was distinct from Artemis from an early period. It is however certain from Pausanias’ brief account of the schema on the Chest of Kypselos that the schema had eventually come to be associated with Artemis. Images depicting Artemis holding a small lion and a bow appear to be evidence of a merging of the two figures (fig. 35).

Excavators Dawkins and Thompson surmised that the Archaic Potnia Theron pose was originally aimed at depicting the local deity Orthia, which was then adopted by the later Artemis upon her assimilation of Orthia. The decline of the use of the figure after the Archaic period could support this theory. However it does not explain the use of the schema across Greece. Nor is there any epigraphic evidence of a goddess with the name Orthia prior to the Hellenistic

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 273 Vernant 1991, 211-212. Unfortunately Vernant does not provide the ancient source and Larson 2007, 104, references Vernant. He ! may however be referring to Paus. 2. 4. 5, or 10. 19. 3. 274 Vernant 1991, 209.

! 75 inscriptions at the site.275 They recognize and acknowledge the limits of this conclusion and state that the eastern coast of the Greek mainland may have been more susceptible to influences from the East, resulting in the schema from that area developing from a different background.276

However, the possible development of the schema and its relative uniformity in pose appears not to represent different local goddesses. Rather, the schema likely reflected a concern or concept relevant to Archaic Greeks, such as protection from the wild, or the wariness and unpredictability that should be associated with animals.277

If Vernant is correct in his analysis that Artemis was a goddess of liminal spaces and positions, the difference in depiction on the mainland from Crete, and later periods, could be evidence of specific cultural methods of depicting the figure and her role. As discussed in Chapter

One, social groups consciously added to their repertoire of deities and images. However, the schema and it use in the Archaic period suggests that it did not originally depict Artemis. Yet, the later association with the goddess may reflect a society who saw value or social need in adopting this image in order to convey an aspect or concern related to Artemis.278 The termination or adaption of this practice in the late Archaic and early Classical periods may also illustrate a change in social needs.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 275 Cyrino 2004, 26. 276 Note however, Boeotian examples which are more like the Bronze Age schema discussed in Chapter One in attitude. Geographically, Boeotia would have been exposed to eastern contact, however, their depictions of the Potnia Theron does not appear to display any ‘eastern’ motifs. 277 The presence of the schema in a variety of locations may also be evidence of acculturation through the various social groups. I.e. the image may be specifically important to one group, it was then appropriated because it helped convey either then same concept in their society, or fit into yet another model. Therefore, it is possible, although difficult to prove, that the schema during the Archaic period functioned in multiple ways for different groups. 278 ! Newmann-Stille 2007, 127ff.

76 CONCLUSION

The number of Potnia Theron images found in votive contexts and her presence on various media confound any simple interpretation of the figure and her role in Archaic Greek societies.

Traditionally she has been interpreted as an aspect of Artemis, exemplifying her associations with the wild through her captive animals.279 However, the use of the Potnia Theron schema encompasses more complexities than the above interpretation allows for. I contend that it is unlikely that the Potnia Theron schema depicted Artemis prior to the Late Archaic period. It is possible that she originally represented a local deity with a mythic tradition, a personification of the wild; or perhaps she was a recognizable symbol with a specific meaning. However, the schema later became associated with Artemis, functioning as a suitable medium and model for the expression of her attributes.

Prior to the late Archaic period, the schema filled a complex role that is not yet fully understood. It had many similarities with sealings and seal stones in the Bronze Age, differing only in respect to the types of animals depicted and the manner in which the female interacts with them. The tripartite pose is maintained throughout the depictions. However, the interaction between the female figures and their attendant animals may be evidence of different social concerns, and distinct methods of viewing the divine. Both schemata from the Bronze Age and the Archaic period depict lions, expressing power and therefore some continuity in meaning.

However, there are distinct problems with prior assumptions about the figure as Artemis. Religion in the Archaic period was fluid and there is little evidence demonstrating that Artemis was established as an independent goddess. Furthermore, the early attribution of the schema to

Artemis impedes research about early deities and how they were viewed.

Religion during the early Archaic period was particularly fluid, and the lack of reliable epigraphic materials resulted in a premature attribution of the figure to Artemis. The lack of inscriptions prior to the Hellenistic period at the site of the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia means that it is impossible to ascertain with any certainty the presence of Artemis or a deity by the name of

Orthia, at the site in the Archaic period or even in the Classical period. A re-analysis of finds at the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 279 ! E.g. Vernant 1991, 196; Bevan 1987, 77-78, Larson 2007, 102.

! 77 site, accompanied by Boardman’s new chronology, exposed an approximate date for an important change at the site. Prior to the sand layer c. 570/560 BCE, the Potnia Theron schema was used on both ivory and lead votives. After this layer, despite large numbers of lead votives present, the schema does not appear to have been used. Instead deer were introduced into the lead iconography, other animal types disappeared completely, and warrior and Athena-type votives became the norm. The significant change in the votive material, and the extensive building program that also occurred during this time indicates that although the sanctuary was later dedicated to Artemis, the schema did not represent the goddess prior to this change.

Vase decoration and personal items such as the gold plaques from Rhodes, depict the

Potnia Theron schema outside of a sanctuary context, indicating that it functioned in various ways.

A modern concept of violence toward animals (a reason the schema is often ascribed to Artemis) is not helpful in interpretations; such concepts are culturally dependent. It is possible that the vases depicting the schema functioned in a different way from votives, although from a brief comparison with Egyptian Horus stelae, it is conceivable that the two functioned in a similar manner: representing protection from the animals depicted, or protection from the concept of the wild or barbarian.

It is plausible to assume that the later association of the schema with Artemis came about for a number of reasons; the ambiguity of the females’ relationship with the animals as expressed particularly through two frontal ivories from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia; the (marshy and liminal) site of the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia where a number of Potnia Theron were found; and finally, due to the growing popularity of the goddess, Artemis. The assimilation of the schema with Artemis may be due to a shared role or function, although I argue that the schema does not represent a huntress, as the animals are not depicted dead, nor are they typically hunted animals.

It is possible that as Naiden argues, the Potnia Theron figure was a representation of a phenomenon,280 possibly the personification of the wild, or of man’s interaction with the wild, although such an assumption is difficult to prove. Rather, the schema was adapted for different cultural purposes to reflect different needs; “the eventual blending of the two personae in cult

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 280 Naiden 2013b, 391.

78 finally resulted in an iconographic fusion… By the late Archaic and early Classical periods, the

Mistress of Animals is assimilated into the huntress.”281

The Archaic Potnia Theron schema does not appear to have represented the goddess

Artemis. However, the specific identity of the figure is still a matter of debate. The re- interpretation of the schema is important for future research, opening doors to understanding levels of continuity from the Bronze Age, processes of syncretization, and more importantly, determining possible identities and functions of motifs, and figures in the early Archaic period.

Furthermore, this conclusion, while possibly controversial, is important for illustrating different methods of transference and understanding possible reasons for the transfer of cultural information in the early Greek Archaic period.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 281 Marinatos 2000, 97.

! 79

Appendix One: Figures

a. b.

c. d.

Figure 1a: Carnelian seal with rampant lions. b. Lentoid onyx seal with griffins. c. Hematite Seal with griffins. d. Seal with griffins.

80 a. b.

c. b.

Figure 2a. Gold pendant from Tell el-Ajul. b. Gold Plaque from Minet el-Beida. c. Ivory Plaque from Minet el-Beida.

81 a. !! b.

Figure 3a. Lentoid seal, female holding a goat by its horns. b. Lentoid seal, central female holding a long-necked bird in each hand.

a. b.

c.

Figure 4a. Francois Vase, Potnia Theron figure holding a panther and a stag by their necks. b. Attic black- figure amphora, Amasis Painter. Potnia Theron holding two lions by their rear paws. c. Gold plaques depicting the Potnia Theron holding two lions by their tails. 82 a.

b.

c.

d.

Figure 5a. Winged running Gorgons. b. Winged female between two figures holding spears. c. The birth of Athena, Zeus is attended by two winged figures possibly Eileithyia and another. d. Apollo, Herakles and the tripod accompanied by a winged Athena and Hermes. 83 Figure 6a. Stamped terracotta brick, Potnia Theron holding water birds.

Figure 6b. Neck of hydria, depicting Potnia Theron holding hares, and flanked by lions, snakes, and an eagle on her head.

84 a. b.

Figure 7a. Miniature Cippus of Horus, holding a lion and another animal. b. Cippus of Horus, holding a gazelle and a lion.

Figure 8a. Dian of Versailles. b. Hellenistic Artemis

85 Figure 9. Stratigraphy of the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia

86 Figure 10. Site of the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, Archaic remains highlighted in blue

87 b. a.

c. d.

Figure 11a, b, c. Reconstructions of full lead figurines. d. Lead figurine with one animal. e. Lead plaque in the manner of the ivory plaques found at the site.

88 e. Figure 12. Lead figurines, Winged females.

Figure 13. Lead animal figurines.

89 a.

a. a.

b.

Figure 14a. First Style Potnia Theron ivory holding a bird in each hand. An almost identical ivory was also found at the site. b. First Style ivory fibula, Potnia Theron holding a bird and a leopard.

90 a. b.

c. d.

Figure 15a. Second Style ivory, frontal Potnia Theron holding two birds with two more seated on her shoulders. b. Second Style ivory, frontal Potnia Theron holding two birds with two more near her shoulders. c. Second Style ivory, profile damaged Potnia Theron holding a bird with a snake attached to her wrist. d. Second Style ivory, profile damaged Potnia Theron holding a long-necked bird. 91 Figure 16. Damaged figure, perhaps showing a Potnia Theron with snakes.

Figure 17. Lead figurines, Females holding wreaths, and armless. Winged females holding wreaths.

92 Figure 18. ‘Degradation’ of female figure.

Figure 19. Lead figurines depicting Athena types

93 a.

b.

Figure 20a. Red-Figure oinochoe depicting Artemis with wings. b. Classical Stele from Eastern Greece depicting Artemis holding a lion, with wings.

94 Figure 21. Amasis painter lekythos, Potnia Theron holding two lions between two draped youths holding spears.

Figure 22. Amasis Painter amphora, Potnia Theron figure between armed youths. Side B is almost identical.

95 Figure 23. Melian amphora. Potnia Theron in neck panel, holding two lions.

96 Figure 24. Francois Vase, exterior of one handle, Potnia Theron holding a panther and a stag. The opposing handle depicts a Potnia Theron holding two lions.

97 Figure 25a. Boeotian Bell idol, a ‘nature deity.’ b. Boeotian polos depicting a nature deity associated with the Mistress of Animals.

b.

98 Figure 26. Boeotian pyxis, Potnia Theron holding two birds.

Figure 27. Gem, Potnia Theron Figure 28. Corinthian arybellos. holding a goat and a lion. Potnia Theron holding birds.

99 Figure 29. Corinthian alabastron, Potnia Theron holding two birds.

Figure 30. Rhodian plate depicting a Gorgon-headed Potnia Theron

100 Figure 31. Reconstruction of the Chest of Kypselos, adapted from Schefold.

101 Figure 32. Black-figure band-cup, signed by Archikles and Glaukytes. The Calydonian Boar Hunt.

Figure 33a. Red-figure lekythos, Artemis holds a bow and caresses a fawn. b. Red-figure lekythos, Artemis wearing a chiton and himation, hold a bow and gesture to a fawn

102 Figure 34. Map of important Lacedaemonian sanctuaries. Sanctuaries to Artemis are highlighted to display their positions. 1. Karyai, 8. Epidauros LImera, 9. Boiai, 14. Limnai. Sited approximately.

103 a.

b.

Figure 35a. Alexandrian coin depicting Artemis the huntress carrying a stag by its front legs. b. Statue from Corfu, Artemis holding a bow and a lion by its rear leg, c. 450 BCE.

104 FIGURE LIST

1) Bronze Age examples of the Potnia Theron schema.

a. Carnelian seal. Mycenae Tomb 515. Athens, Mus. Nat. Arch., 6442. The central female

figure is wearing a double snake headdress with a small double headed axe above. She is

flanked by two rearing lions on a straight ground line. LIMC Artemis 2.

b. Lentoid onyx seal with a string hole. The central female figure is wearing a double snake

headdress with a double axe icon above. She is flanked by two griffins on a straight

ground line. M. S. F. Hood and P. de Jong. BSA 47 (1952), fig. 16 no. III. 20.

c. Hematite seal. Late Minoan. The central female figure is on the ‘hands on hips’ pose with

short wavy lines on her shoulders, perhaps approximating wings. She is flanked by two

griffins on a straight groundline. Newman-Stille 2007, Cat. 28.

d. Mistress of Animals seal. LC. Ialysos, Makri Vounari, Grave 20. Rhodes, Arch. Mus., Inv. Nr.

3632; CMS V, 2.654. Barclay 2001, Pl. CIV. e.

2) Near Eastern examples of the Mistress of Animals pose.

a. Gold pendant from Tell el-Ajul. Collection Unknown, Hiller 2001, Pl. XCV. 34.

b. Gold plaque from Minet el Beida, Syria. Paris, Louvre, AO 14717. Barclay 2001, Pl. CIV d.

c. Ivory Plaque from Minet el-Beida, Syria. Collection Unknown, Hiller 2001, Pl. XCIII.19.

3) Mycenaean examples of the female holding her attendant animals.

a. Lentoid seal. A female holding a goat by its horns. Berlin. Hiller 2001, Pl. XCIV. 23a, after

CMS I, suppl., 180.

b. Lentoid seal. A central female figure wearing a flounced skirt, holds two water birds

(possibly swans) by their necks. Younger 1985, 42, fig. 6.56.

4) Select examples of the Potnia Theron schema from the Archaic period.

a. François Vase, c. 570 BCE. Chiusi. Florence, Mus. Arch. 4209. Potnia Theron holding a

panther and a stag. LIMC Artemis 33 (b).

b. Attic black-figure amphora, Orvieto, Amasis Painter, c. 550-500 BCE. Potnia Theron with a

lion and a deer. Orvieto, Mus. Civ., Coll. Faina 118. BAD 350471.

! 105 https://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/xdb/ASP/browse.asp?tableName=qryData&newwindow=&B

rowseSession=1&companyPage=Contacts&newwindowsearchclosefrombrowse=,

accessed 11 March 2014.

c. Mistress of Animals motif on seven gold plaques. Rhodes, Kamiros Tomb c. 660-620 BCE,

4.2cm. London, BM, GR 1861.11-11.1.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?o

bjectId=462592&partId=1&searchText=mistress+of+animals&page=1, accessed 11 March

2014.

5) Winged deities

a. Attic neck amphora, Nessos Painter. Gorgons running. Athens, Mus. Nat. Arch. 1002.

Para. 3, 13. Boardman 1974, fig. 5.

b. Attic black-figure alabastron, Amasis Painter. Winged women between two men holding

spears. Athens, Agora Mus. P 12628. ABV 155, 64. Boardman 1974, fig. 79.

c. Belly amphora, Nola, Princeton Painter. Seated Zeus and the birth of Athena. Princeton,

Princeton Uni. Mus. 168. ABV 299, 19. Boardman 1974, fig. 138.

d. Chalcidian skyphos, Herakles, Apollo, and the tripod, with winged Athena and Hermes.

Naples, Mus. Arch. Nat., SA 120. Boardman 1998, fig. 482.2.

6) Select examples of the Potnia Theron schema from the Archaic period, illustrating her

association with multiple animals.

a. a. Stamped terracotta brick. Mycenae, c. 670 BCE. Potnia Theron holding water birds.

Paris, Louvre CA 297. LIMC Artemis 14. © Marie-Lan Nguyen/ Wikimedia Commons.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Relief_Potnia_Theron_Louvre_CA297.JPG,

accessed 11 March 2014.

b. b. Neck of hydria, c. 570 BCE. Potnia Theron holding hares and flanked by two seated

lions. Bern, Bern. Hist. Mus. 11620. LIMC Artemis 47.

7) Horus Stelae

a. Miniature Cippus of Horus, anhydrite, Egypt, Third Intermediate Period – Late Period (c.

712-332 BCE). New York, Met. Mus. of Art, 57. 143.

106 http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/search-the-collections/545378. Accessed 18

February 2014.

b. Cippus of Horus, anhydrite, Egypt, Late Period – Ptolemaic Period (c. 664-30 BCE). New

York, Met. Mus. of Art, 44. 4. 53. http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/search-the-

collections/546260. Accessed 18 February 2014.

8) Diana of Versailles. Marble Roman copy of a Greek original. Artemis the huntress. 4th century

BCE. Paris, Louvre MA 589.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diane_de_Versailles_Leochares.jpg. Accessed 24 March

2014.

9) Stratigraphy of the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, Sparta. AO (1929), Pl. 2.

10) Site plan of the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, Sparta. Dawkins 1909-1910, Pl. IV.

11) Full reconstructions of lead Potnia Theron figurines. Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, Sparta, Arch.

Mus.

a. Lead imitation of an ivory fibula. Profile Mistress of Animals holding two lions by their front

paws. Wace 1929, fig. 119, 260.

b. Frontal lead Mistress of Animals holding two walking lions by their tails. Wace 1929, fig.

120, 260.

c. Frontal lead Mistress of Animals holding two lions by their necks. Wace 1929, fig. 121.e,

261.

d. Lead figurine holding one lion by its neck, possibly damaged. Wace 1929, fig. 122.f.

e. Lead plaque in imitation of ivory plaques at the site. Potnia Theron holding a bird in each

hand by their necks. Wace 1929, fig. 126.b.

12) Damaged lead figurines depicting winged females, many without hands. Sanctuary of Artemis

Orthia, Sparta, Arch. Mus. AO (1929), Pl. CLXXXVIII.

! 107 13) An example of lead animals from Orthia, including griffins, lions and horses. Sanctuary of

Artemis Orthia, Sparta, Arch. Mus. AO (1929), Pl. CLXXXVII.

14) First Style Ivories from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia depicting the Potnia Theron schema,

Sparta. Ivory, c. 650-600 BCE.

a. ‘First Style’ ivory plaque. Mistress of Animals holding two birds. Sparta, Arch. Mus. LIMC

1984, Artemis 42.

b. ‘First Style’ ivory fibula. Mistress of Animals holding a bird and a leopard. Sparta, Arch.

Mus. Dawkins 1907, 78. Thompson 1909, 286, Fig. 1.

15) Second Style Ivories from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia depicting the Potnia Theron

schema, Sparta. Ivory, c. 650-600 BCE.

a. ‘Second Style’ Frontal ivory plaque. Mistress of Animals holding a bird in each hand with

two more birds perched on her shoulders. Athens, Mus. Nat. Arch., Inv. 15502. Personal

communication.

b. ‘Second Style’ Frontal ivory plaque. Mistress of Animals holding a bird in each hand with

two more perched near her shoulders. AO (1929), Pl. XCVIII. 1.

c. ‘Second Style’ Damaged ivory plaque. Mistress of Animals holding a bird in her right hand

with a snake hanging from her arm. Athens, Mus. Nat. Arch., Inv. 15503. Personal

communication.

d. ‘Second Style’ Damaged ivory plaque. Mistress of Animals holding a stork in her right

hand. AO (1929), Pl. XCVIII. 3.

16) Ceramic fragment, possible depiction of a Potnia Theron holding snakes. R. Dawkins, Dawkins

1909-1910, fig. 1.

17) Lead Figurines depicting winged females and votaries holding circular objects, probably

wreaths. Altar area, sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, Sparta, Arch. Mus. AO (1929), Pl. CLXXXIX.

18) Degradation of lead figurines. Typical figurines from Lead III-IV, after c. 560 BCE. Sanctuary of

Artemis Orthia, Sparta, Arch. Mus. Thompson 1909, Fig. 9, 10, 11.

108

19) Lead figurines depicting Athena types. Numbers 2 and 3 hold bows. Lead III-IV, after c. 560

BCE. Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, Sparta, Arch. Mus. AO (1929), Pl. CXCVI.

20) Late Archaic, early Classical depictions of a winged Artemis with her bow and animals.

a. Attic red figure oinochoe with winged Artemis and fawn. Dutuit Painter, 500-475 BCE.

Paris, Mus. du Petit Palais, Dut. 327. E. Reeder 1995, fig. 91.

b. Eastern Greek stele, marble. A winged Artemis holding a lion by its front paw, c. 525 BCE.

Istanbul, Mus. Arch. 680 (M 526). LIMC Artemis 53.

21) Attic black-figure lekythos, Amasis Painter. c. 575-525 BCE. Potnia Theron holding a lion in

each hand by their rear legs, flanked by draped youths holding spears. BAD 310477. LIMC

Artemis 34.

22) Attic black-figure neck amphora, Amasis Painter, c. 550-500 BCE. A: Potnia Theron figure

holding lions between youths holding spears, some draped; B: Potnia Theron holding lions

between youths with spears. Basel, Anti. Sammlung Ludwig, BS497. BAD 350471.

https://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/xdb/ASP/browse.asp?tableName=qryData&newwindow=&Brow

seSession=1&companyPage=Contacts&newwindowsearchclosefrombrowse=, accessed 11

March 2014.

23) Melian amphora. Potnia Theron in profile holding two lions by their rear legs, with decorative

antennae on her head, c. 670-660 BCE. Mykonos, Mus. 666. LIMC Artemis 22.

24) Francois Vase. Chiusi. Florence, Mus. Arch. 4209. Winged female figure in profile wearing a

peplos. A: holding a panther and a stag. B: Potnia Theron holds two lions. BAD 300000. LIMC

Artemis 33. Neer 2012, Fig. 5.38b.

http://hccl.byu.edu/macfarlane/OGCMA/0216ANCIENTArtemisGL_Francois.htm, accessed 25

March 2014.

! 109 25) Boeotian examples of deities associated with birds, possibly related to the Potnia Theron

schema.

a. Boeotian bell-idol, Thebes, c. 700 BCE. Paris, Louvre CA 573. Mistress of Nature,

associated with Artemis. Boardman 1998, fig. 101.

b. Boeotian polos. Mistress of Animals with attendants. Geometric. Stockholm, NM.

Boardman 1998, fig. 235.

26) Boeotian pyxis, 6th century BCE. Profile Potnia Theron holding two birds by their necks, side

panel depicts a bridled horse. Berlin, Antikenmuseum F 306. LIMC Artemis 27.

27) Hematite seal. Potnia Theron holding a goat and a lion, 6th century BCE. Berlin,

Antikenmuseum FG. 124. LIMC Artemis 36.

28) Corinthian aryballos. c. 580-575 BCE. Potnia Theron holding two birds. Oxford, Ash. Mus.,

1896. 42. LIMC Artemis 29.

29) Corinthian alabastron, Potnia Theron holding two swans (?). Tauchira Painter, c. 550 BCE.

Delos, Arch. Mus., 451. Boardman 1998, fig. 370. A similar alabastron can be found in the

British Museum, 1894,1031.1.

30) Rhodian plate from Camirus, with Gorgon – headed goddess in the Potnia Theron pose. c.

600 BCE. London, Brit. Mus. 1860.4-4.2. Boardman 1998, fig. 297.

31) Reconstruction of the Chest of Kyselos, c. 570BCE. After W. von Massow. Adapted from

Schefold 1966, fig. 26.

32) Black-figure band-cup, Archikles and Glaukytes. The Calydonian Boar Hunt. From Vulci.

Munich, Antikensammlungen 2243. ABV 163, 2. Boardman 1978, fig. 116.

33) Classical examples of Artemis the huntress with her bow, and animals.

110 a. Red-figure lekythos, the huntress Artemis with wings and a bow caressing a fawn. Siracusa,

Museo Archeologico Nazionale 23611. ARV 308. LIMC Artemis 619.

b. Red-figure lekythos, Artemis wearing a chiton and himation, and holding a bow, gestures

to a fawn. c. 470 BCE. Madison, University of Wisconsin, Elvehjem Mus. of Art. LIMC

Artemis 970.

34) Map of important Lacedaemonian sanctuaries. Sanctuaries to Artemis highlighted in blue.

Adapted from Richer 2007, fig. 15.3.

35) Examples of the eventual blending of the iconography. Artemis the huntress holding and

animals in the manner of a Potnia Theron.

a. Alexandrian coin of Hadrian, 134/135 CE. Artemis the huntress holding a bow and a stag

by its front legs. Moulage Winterthur, Stadtbibliothek. LIMC Artemis 604.

b. Statue from Corfu, Artemis holding in her left hand a bow and in her right a lion by its rear

legs. c. 450 BCE. Athens, Mus. Nat. Arch. Car 1073. LIMC 607.

! 111 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdi, K. (2002) “An Egyptian Cippus of Horus in the Iran National Museum, Tehran.”

Journal of Near Eastern Studies 61 (3): 203-210.

Adams, E. (2004) “Power and Ritual in Neopalatial Crete: A Regional Comparison.” World

Archaeology 36 (1): 26-42.

Alberti, B. (2002) “Gender and the Figurative Art of Late Bronze Age Knossos.” In

Labyrinth revisited, by Yannis Hamilakis, edited by Yannis Hamilakis, 98-119.

Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Andersen, H. D. (1992) “The Origin of Potnia Theron in Central Italy.” Hamburger

Bietrage zur archaologie 19/20: 73-113.

Ascher, R. (1961) “Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation.” Southwestern Journal of

Anthropology 17: 317-325.

Barclay, A. (2001) “The Potnia Theron: Adaption of a Near Eastern Image.” In POTNIA:

Deites and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th

International Aegean Conference Goteborg. Edited by Robert Laffineur and Robin

Hagg, 373-386. Goteborg: Aegeaum.

Bevan, E. (1987) “The Goddess Artemis and the Dedication of Bears in Sanctuaries.”

Annual of the British School at Athens 82: 17-21.

Boardman, J. (1963) "Artemis Orthia and Chronology." Annual of the British School at

Athens 58:1-7.

Boardman, J. (1974) Athenian Black Figure Vases. London: Thames and Hudson.

Boardman, J. (1998) Early Greek Vase Painting. London: Thames and Hudson.

Burkert, W. (1985) Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical. Translated by John Raffon.

Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Calame, C. (2010) “Identities of Gods and Heroes: Athenian Garden Sanctuaries and

Gendered Rites of Passage.” In The Gods of Ancient Greece: Identies and

112!! Transformations. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer and Andrew Erskine, translated by

Christopher Strachan, 245-269. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Chadwick, J. and M. Ventris (1973) Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Colburn, C. S. (2008) “Exotica and the body in the Minoan and Mycenaean worlds.” In

Reading a dynamic canvas: Adornment in the ancient Mediterranean world, edited

by Cynthia S. Colburn and Maura K. Heyn, 13-47. New Castle: Cambridge Scholars

Publishing.

Cole, S. G. (2004) Landscapes, Gender and Ritual Space: The Ancient Greek Experience.

Berkley: University of California Press.

Cornelius, I. (1993) "Anat and Qudshu as the <> Aspects of the

Iconography of the Canaanite goddess." Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 10: 21-35.

Cosmopoulos, M. (1991) “Exchange Networks in Prehistory: The Aegean and the

Mediterranean in the third millenium B.C.” Aegaeum 7: 155-167.

Crowley, J. L. (2008) “Mycenaean Art and Architecture.” In The Cambridge Companion to

the Aegean Bronze Age. Edited by Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, 258-288. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Cyrino, M. S. (2004) "The Identity of the goddess in Alcman's Louvre 'Partheneion.'" The

Classical Journal 100 (1): 25-38.

Davie, J. trans (2002) Euripides: Hercules and other plays. London: Penguin Classics.

Dawkins, R. M. (1929) The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta: Excavated and

described by members of the British School at Athens, 1906-1910. London: The

Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies.

Deger-Jalkotzy, S. (2008) "Decline, Destruction, Aftermath." In The Cambridge

Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. Edited by Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, 387-

415. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Demsky, A. (1998) “Discovering a Goddess.” Biblical Archaeology Review 24 (4): 53-58.

Dietrich, B. C. (1986) Tradition in Greek Religion. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.

! 113 Donohue, A. A. (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture. Atlanta: Scholars Press,

American Classical Studies 15.

Elsner, J. (2007) Roman Eyes: Visuality and Subjectivity in Art and Text. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.

Evans, A. (1901) “Mycneaean Tree and Pillar cult and its Mediterranean Relations.” The

Journal of Hellenic Studies 21: 99-204.

Evans, A. (1921-1935) Palace of Minos: A Comparative Account of the Successive Stages

of the Early Cretan Civilisations as illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos. 6 vols.

London: Macmillan.

Farnell, L. R. (1896) The Cults of Greek States. Vol. II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Fischer-Hansen, T. and B. Paulsen (2009) “Introduction.” In From Artemis to Diana: The

Goddess of Man and Beast, edited by T. Fischer-Hansen and B. Paulsen, 11-17.

Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

French, E. (1981) “Mycenaean Figures and Figurines, their Typology and Function.” In

Sanctuaries and cults in the Aegean Bronze Age: Proceedings of the first

International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12-13 May, 1980.

Edited by Robin Hagg and Nanno Marinatos, 173-177. Stockholm: Svenska

institutet i Athen.

Gantz, T. (1993) Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources. Baltimore and

London: The John Hopkins University Press.

Gill, D. and M. Vickers (2001) "Laconian lead figurines: Mineral extraction and exchange

in the Archaic Mediterranean." BSA 96: 229-236.

Goldman, B. (1960) “The Development of the Lion-griffin.” American Journal of

Archaeology 64 (4): 319-328.

Graf, F. (2010) “Gods in Greek Inscriptions: Some Methodological Questions.” In The

Gods of Ancient Greece: Identites and Transformations. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer

and Andrew Erskine, 55-80. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

114!! Graf, F. (2003) “Initiation: A Concept with a Troubled History.” In Initiation in Ancient

Greek rituals and narratives: New critical perspectives. Edited by D. B. Dodd and

C. A. Farone, 3-24. London and New York: Routledge, 2003.

Hagg, R. and N. Marinatos. (1981) “Conclusions and Prospects.” In Sanctuaries and Cults

in the Aegean Bronze Age: Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the

Swedish Institute in Athens, 12-13 May, 1980. Edited by Robin Hagg and Nanno

Marinatos, 213-217. Stockholm: Svenska institutet i Athen.

Hagg, R. (1997) “Did the Middle Helladic have any Religion?” Kernos 10: 13-18.

Hagg, R. (1981) “Official and Popular Cults in Mycenaean Greece.” In Sanctuaries and

Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age: Proceedings of the First International Symposium

at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12-13 May, 1980. Edited by Robin Hagg and

Nanno Marinatos, 35-39. Stockholm: Svenska institutet i Athen.

Heyn, M. K. and C. S. Colburn. (2008) “Introduction.” In Reading a Dynamic Canvas:

Adornment in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Edited by Cynthia S. Colburn and

Maura K. Heyn, 1-12. New Castle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Hjerrild, B. (2009) “Near Eastern Equivalents to Artemis.” In From Artemis to Diana: The

Goddess of Man and Beast, edited by T. Fischer-Hansen and B. Paulsen, 41-49.

Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

Hodkinson, S. and A. Powell, eds. (1999) Sparta: New Perspectives. London: Gerald

Duckworth and Co. Ltd, and The Classical Press of Wales.

Hodkinson, S. and I. Morris, eds. (2012) Sparta in Modern Thought: Politics, History and

Culture. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales.

Jensen, M. (2009) “Artemis in Homer.” In From Artemis to Diana: The Goddess of Man

and Beast, edited by T. Fischer-Hansen and B. Paulsen, 51-60. Copenhagen:

Museum Tusculanum Press.

Jones, W. H. S. trans (1918) Pausanias: Description of Greece. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press.

Kahil, L. (1984) Artemis. Vol. 2, in LIMC, 618-774. Artemis.

! 115 Kopaka, K. (2001) “A Day in Potnia's Life: Aspects of Potnia and Reflected "Mistress"

Activities in the Aegean Bronze Age.” In POTNIA: Deities and Religion in the

Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference,

Goteborg. Edited by R. and Hagg, R. Laffineur, 15-27. Goteborg: Aegeaum.

Kopanias, K. (2009) “Some Ivories from the Geometric Stratum at the Sanctuary of

Artemis Orthia, Sparta: Interconnections between Sparta, Crete, and the Orient

during the Late Eighth Century BCE.” British School at Athens Studies: SPARTA

and LACONIA: From Prehistory to Premodern 16: 123-131.

Korshak, Y. (1987) Frontal Faces in Attic Vase Painting of the Archaic Period. Chicago:

Ares Publishers.

Larson, J. (2007) Ancient Greek Cults: A Guide. New York and London: Routledge.

Marinatos, N. (2000) The Goddess and the Warrior: The Naked Goddess and Mistress of

Animals in Early Greek Religion. London: Routledge.

Marinatos, N. (2010) Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess: A Near Eastern Koine.

Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Mejer, J. (2009a) “Artemis in Athens.” In From Artemis to Diana: The Goddess of Man

and Beast. Edited by T. Fischer-Hansen and B. Paulsen, 61-77. Copenhagen:

Museum Tusculanum Press.

Mejer, J. (2009b) “A Note on a Dedication to Artemis in Kalydon.” In From Artemis to

Diana: The Goddess of Man and Beast. Edited by T. Fischer-Hansen and B.

Paulsen, 79-81. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

Naiden, F. S. (2013a) Smoke Signals for the Gods: Ancient Greek Sacrifice from the

Archaic through Roman Periods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Naiden, F. S. (2013b) "Recent Study of Greek Religion in the Archaic through Hellenistic

Periods." Currents in Biblical Research 11 (3): 388-427.

Neer, R. T. (2012) Art and Archaeology of the Greek World c. 2500 - c.150 BCE. London:

Thames and Hudson.

116!! Newmann-Stille, D. (2007) Acculturation in the Aegean Bronze Age: A study of the

adoption and re-interpretation of Minoan Religious iconography by the Helladic

culture. MA thesis awarded at Trent University, Ontario.

Nielsen, I. (2009) “The Sanctuary of Artemis Brauronia: Can Architecture and Iconography

help to locate the settings of the Ritual?” In From Artemis to Diana: The Goddess

of Man and Beast. Edited by T. Fischer-Hansen and B. Paulsen, 83-116.

Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

Nilsson, M. P. (1923) “Fire-Festivals in Ancient Greece.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies

(The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies) 43: 144-148.

Nilsson, M. P. (1927) The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion.

Lund: Gleerup.

Nosch, M. L. (2009) “Approaches to Artemis in Bronze Age Greece.” In From Artemis to

Diana: The Goddess of Man and Beast. Edited by T. Fischer-Hansen and B.

Paulsen, 21-39. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

Owens, G. A. (1996) "'All Religions are One' (William Blake 1757-1827),

Astarte/Ishtar/Ishassaras/Asasarame: The Great Mother Goddess of Minoan Crete

and the Eastern Mediterranean." In Cretan Studies 5: 209-218.

Page, D. L. (1951) Alcman: The Partheneion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Palaima, T. G. (2008) “Mycenaean Religion.” In The Cambridge Companion to the

Aegean Bronze Age. Edited by Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, 342-361. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Parker, R. (2011) On Greek Religion. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

Payne, G. and J. Payne (2004) Key Concepts in Social Research. London: SAGE

Publications Ltd.!http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/key-concepts-in-social-

research/n1.xml, accessed 21 January 2014.

Pedley, J. (2012) Greek Art and Archaeology 5th ed. New York: Prentice Hall.

Perlès, C. The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

! 117 Petrovic, I. (2010) “Transforming Artemis: From the Goddess to the Outdoors to City

Goddess.” In The Gods of Ancient Greece: Identites and Transformations. Edited

by Jan N. Bremmer and Andrew Erskine, 209-227. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press.

Pinney, M. E. (1925) "Votive Gifts to Artemis Orthia." In Metropolitan Museum of Art

Bulletin 20 (6): 157-159.

Pirenne-Delforge, V. (2010) “Reading Pausanias: Cults of the Gods and Representation of

the Divine.” In The Gods of Ancient Greece: Identites and Transformations. Edited

by Jan N. Bremmer and Andrew Erskine, 375-387. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press.

Platt, V. (2011) Facing the Gods: Epiphany and Representation in Graeco-Roman Art,

Literature, and Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Price, T. H. (1971) “Double and Multiple Representations in Greek Art and Religious

Thought.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 91: 48-69.

Reeder, E. (1995) “Women and the Metaphor of Wild Animals.” In Pandora: Women in

Classical Greece. Edited by Ellen D. Reeder, 299-371. Baltimore, Maryland:

Princeton University Press.

Rehak, P. (2004) “Crocus Costumes in Aegean Art.” Hesperia Supplements, Charis:

Essays in Honour of Sara A. Immerwahr 33: 85-100.

Rehak, P. (2007) “Children's work: Girls as Acolytes in Aegean Ritual and Cult.” Hesperia

Supplements: Constructions of Childhood in Ancient Greece and Italy 41: 205-225.

Renfrew, C. (1981) “Questions of Minoan and Mycenaean Cult.” In Sanctuaries and Cults

in the Aegean Bronze Age: Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the

Swedish Institute in Athens, 12-13 May, 1980. Edited by Robin Hagg and Nanno

Marinatos, 27-33. Stockholm: Svenska institutet i Athen.

Rose, H. J. (1929) “The Cult of Artemis Orthia.” In The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at

Sparta: Excavated and Described by Members of the British School at Athens, by

118!! R. M. Dawkins, 399-407. London: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic

studies: Supplementary Paper no.5.

Schefold, K. (1966) Myth and Legend in Early Greek Art. London: Thames and Hudson.

Schwandt, T. A. (2007) "Qualitative Inquiry" "Relativism" "Structuralism." In The SAGE

Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/the-sage-dictionary-of-qualitative-inquiry/n362.xml,

accessed 21 January 2014.

Seele, K. C. (1947) "Horus on the Crocodiles." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 6 (1): 43-

52.

Snodgrass, A. M. (2001) “Pausanias and the Chest of Kypselos.” In Pausanias: Travel and

Memory in Roman Greece, edited by J. F. Cherry, J. Elsner S. E. Alcock, 127-141.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Soles, J. (2001) "Reverence for Dead Ancestors in Prehistoric Crete." In POTNIA: Deities

and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 8th International

Aegean Conference, Goteborg. Edited by R. and Hagg, R. Laffineur, 229-236.

Goteborg: Aegeaum.

Sourvinou, C. (1971) “A-TE-MI-TO and A-TI-MI-TE.” Kadmos (Walter de Gruyter) 9-10: 42-

47.

Thomas, C. G. and M. Wedde. (2001) “Introduction: Desperately Seeking Potnia.” In

POTNIA: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 8th

International Aegean Conference, Goteborg. Edited by R. Laffineur and R. Hagg,

3-14. Goteborg: Aegeaum.

Thompson, M. S. (1909) “The Asiatic or Winged Artemis.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies

29: 286-307.

Trepanier, S. (2010) “Early Greek Theology: God as Nature and Natural Gods.” In The

Gods of Ancient Greece: Identites and Transformations. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer

and Andrew Erskine, 273-317. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010.

! 119 Van Gennep, A. (1960) The Rites of Passage. Translated by M. Vizedom and G. Caffe.

London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Van Leuven, J. C. (1979) “Mycenaean Goddesses called Potnia.” Kadmos (Walter de

Gruyter) 18: 112-129.

Van Leuven, J. C. (1981) “Problems and Methods of Prehellenic Naology.”In Sanctuaries

and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age: Proceedings of the First International

Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12-13 May, 1980. Edited by Robin

Hagg and Nanno Marinatos, 11-25. Stockholm: Svenska institutet i Athen.

Vernant, J. (1991) Mortals and Immortals: Collected Essays. Princeton, New Jersey:

Princeton University Press.

Versnel, H. S. (2011) Coping with the Gods: Wayward Readings in Greek Theology.

Boston: Brill.

Warren, P. (1981) “Minoan Crete and Ecstatic religion: Preliminary observations on the

1979 excavations at Knossos and Postscript on the 1980 excavations at Knossos.”

In Sanctuaries and cults in the Aegean Bronze Age: Proceedings of the First

International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12-13 May, 1980.

Edited by Robin Hagg and Nanno Marinatos, 155-166. Stockholm: Svenska

institutet i Athen.

Waterfield, R. trans. (1998) Plutarch Greek Lives: A New Translation by Robin Waterfield.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Waugh, N. (2009) “Visualising fertility at Artemis Orthia's site.” British School of Athens

Studies: SPARTA and LACONIA: From Pre-history to Pre-modern 16: 159-167.

West, M. L. (1997) The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and

Myth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Younger, J. (1985) “Aegean Seals of the Late Bronze Age: Stylistic Groups.” In Kadmos

(Walter de Gruyter) 24: 34-73.

120!! Younger, J. G. and P. Rehak. (2008) “Minoan Culture: Religion, Burial Customs, and

Administration.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, edited

by Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, 165-185. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

! 121